>> So maybe we need to improve the way changing maintainership >> works. Having a "Give up for adoption" button (that keeps the current >> maintainer while allowing anybody to adopt the package) in addition to >> "Disown" is one possibility. > What is the point of the "disown" button then, if it does the same > thing as "request for deletion"? > > There are two possible things at play here that a maintainer might want to do: > > 1) "I want the package to be deleted." > 2) "I want a new maintainer to find this package (e.g. because I don't > use this software anymore, but other users and packages still depend > on it)." > > Until now, we could use "request for deletion" for (1), and "disown" > for (2). Now that you're making "disown" work like "request for > deletion", we have two redundant mechanisms for (1), and none for (2). > Adding a third mechanism like you suggest is a possibility, but why > not just have one for each like we did until now?
I think this "Free for adoption" would be a nice feature: 1) "Request for delete" := This package is not needed anymore 2) "Request for adoption" := I will continue maintaining this package (because I think it is important), but I'd like to give it up because I don't want to do this anymore. 3) "Orphaned" := Ok, now I can't maintain this anymore (e.g. because different hardware). Someone needs to adopt is or we will delete it soon (maybe as soon as it will be outdated) Additionally: Installing an orphaned package is maybe not a good idea (outdated, ...). However "Free For adoption" just means: Only the maintainer will change soon (if someone is found), but in the meantime the package is still taken care of.