Hi Holger,
Am Thu, May 08, 2025 at 08:07:35AM +0000 schrieb Holger Levsen:
> On Thu, May 08, 2025 at 10:00:10AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > >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.
>
> again, orphaning means doing a QA upload. a gentler path would be an NMU.
> again, I don't why we need a new process here.
Orphaning is something typically done by the maintainer themselves[1].
If someone else does it unilaterally, wouldn't that come closer to a
hijack? There's precedent for "Intent to orphan packages with
unreachable maintainer address"[2]--but of course, that assumes attempts
to contact the maintainer have failed.
Would it feel more appropriate if I called it ITO (Intent to Orphan)
instead of ITN and use the 21 days waiting period + upload to
delayed=10?
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/Orphaning
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-qa/2021/01/msg00009.html
--
https://fam-tille.de
