On Thu, Aug 03, 2017 at 12:06:16PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Please be more thoughtful about the consequences of such changes to policy. > > This would not be "a purely informative change". > > Your suggested wording has the potential to create a HUGE amount of tensions.
You're right. After sending my patch I realised that it contains the word "should", which is a magic word in policy, imposing a normative requirement. This was not intended. My intended meaning: it is already best practice that *other team members* should orphan a package if they know that no-one in the team is actively taking care of it *according to their judgement of 'actively'*. Would you agree that this is already established best practice? > And it does not even help with the problem Tobias raised: > > When a maintainer retires or is declared MIA by the MIA team according > to the MIA process, how can you *find* all teams and team-maintained > packages where this maintainer was the only or last active team member > when there is no Uploaders: field? I'll reply to this when replying to Tobias' remarks. -- Sean Whitton
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
