Quoting Andreas Tille (2025-05-08 10:00:10) > Hi Jonas, > > Am Wed, May 07, 2025 at 10:27:03PM +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > > > the underlying intent of ITN is to offer > > > support in situations where maintainers, for whatever reason, may no > > > longer have the capacity to care for a package, and to do so in a > > > respectful and transparent way. > > > > What is your offer? To take over? No, you don't want to do an ITS. > > The offer is: fixed bugs, modernised packaging, and migration to > Salsa--at no cost to the current maintainer.
For non-maintainer contributions with no cost to the maintainer, we have a procedure already: NMU. You chose to use an unusually long delay and to call it something else *exactly* because it has cost to the maintainer. The cost is changes to maintenance workflow, which requires changes in skills to maintain the package going forward. > In fact, I've heard from > several maintainers that they weren't sure how to migrate to Salsa, so > this can be a helpful nudge rather than a takeover. You mean you have heard from several maintainers that they accepted the cost you imposed on them, right? > Just for context: I've filed 33 ITS bugs so far, so ITN is not a > substitute for salvage--it's what I resort to only when an ITS doesn't > seem appropriate or feasible. You mean when you do not want to take over but want to provide a drive-by contribution without yourself carrying the cost of it, right? > > > I try to verify activity through > > > contributors.debian.org and typically notify the MIA team if the > > > maintainer appears inactive. > > > > So you are talking about an ITO - intent to orphan? Or ITREAO - > > intent to reveal effectively an orphan? > > >From my point of view, orphaning would be a more forceful step--closer > in spirit to a QA upload, as Holger suggested. I prefer a gentler path > that allows space for maintainers to re-engage if they wish. You mean you would rather coerce the current maintainer to accept the costs of your changes to workflow than having them orphan the package, right? > > In any case, you are talking about invasive action that the current > > maintainer either don't care about because they don't care either way, > > or that they are happy about because... they were asleep and happy that > > you came by and gave them a friendly-but-firm shake? > > I appreciate the irony--it's a fair push to reflect on how such actions > might be perceived. The goal is definitely not to shake people awake, > but to give room for engagement before a package is silently left to > rot. That said, tone and framing do matter, and I'm very open to > adjusting both. I understand that we choose different words for this, but can we agree that you are talking about something that is more... substantial than what is generally understood to be covered by an NMU? And can we agree that what you would like to achieve more tenerally with your experiment is for such more substantial non-maintainer changes to have a formal procedure so as to be recognized as "normal" rather than unusual behaviour within Debian? I.e. you want to normalize more-substantial-than-NMU actions onto packages by non-maintainers, right? I find it problematic that you frame more-substantial-than-NMU actions as having zero cost for the maintainer, because that makes the discussion around establishing such normalization difficult: Some will look at your promise that it is harmless and feel that I am a lunatic to stir hatred and negative vibes in the conversation. It is already happening, so arguably you already succeeded in having my concerns not taken seriously: Congratulations. > I'd prefer to avoid terms that presume bad faith or intention. The whole > point of this discussion is to find a name that honestly reflects the > purpose without being misleading or inflammatory. I'm still hoping we > can agree on something neutral that signals both intent and > openness--without framing it as a hostile act. Please let us first establish a consensus on whether it has cost for the maintainer - I am quite puzzled why this is an issue at all if not. > Do you personally agree that there is a problem to be addressed, and are > you mainly unhappy with my attempt at a solution, with the name I picked > for it--or both? I think there several problems to be addressed, but I am uncertain which of them, if any, you addressed with your experiment and we now address with this discussion. What I strongly suspect is causing my confusion is your framing it as totally harmless and purely for the good of all. Halleluja, how can anyone but a grumpy lunatic disagree with that? > Thank you for your open words in any case and looking forward to see > you in Brest Yes, looking forward to see a bunch of you soon in Brest, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ * Sponsorship: https://ko-fi.com/drjones [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: signature
