On May 8, 2025 20:25, Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote:
> > 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 How about a BoF on strong package ownership in Brest? Thomas
