Hi Jonas,
Am Thu, May 08, 2025 at 11:22:44AM +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> Quoting Andreas Tille (2025-05-08 10:26:08)
> > 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?
>
> Yes, that helps tremendously.
Great.
> That makes is clear that we are talking about an aim of taking away
> maintainership, where we can then sensibly discuss what are the costs
> for the maintainer in complying or non-complying with the request, and
> the costs for the project in having this procedure and not having it.
I'm definitely interested in hearing what others think.
My gut feeling is that such a process could come across as more
aggressive toward the maintainer--but I'm open to discussing it and
better understanding the trade-offs.
> That avoids confusing arguments like "it has no cost to the maintainer"
> or "we already have that procedure established", because it is clearly
> something specific and different from both NMU, ITA and MIA.
As I tried to express I'd happily take advise for a better name.
> Thank you for clarifying. I have taken the liberty of renaming the
> subject field, and hope we can move on with a more focused discussion
> onwards,
Makes perfectly sense. Thank you for doing so.
See you
Andreas.
--
https://fam-tille.de
