On Thursday, October 25, 2012 10:15:48 AM Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 24/10/12 at 08:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > That could work either way. If you're in such a rush to build consensus > > you could change 3/1 ACK/NACK ratio to without objection (objections > > result in disputes resolved by the tech ctte) and have a +1 from me. > > > > The problem is that once in place these rules are rather harder to change. > > While you have in mind a certain set of packages this rule should be > > applied to, there's nothing preventing it from being applied in incorrect > > cases. > > > > The popularity contest aspect of the current rule creates a risk that > > maintainers that make unpopular, but technically correct, choices will > > have their packages orphaned out from under them. > I am quite sure that we will find many DDs (me included) willing to NACK > all proposals of "stealing" packages from technically-correct, active, > but unpopular maintainers. And you can even drop "technically-correct" > from my sentence. The goal of this proposal is not to substitute for the > technical committee. > > Really, I don't see how a cabal could abuse this recommended procedure > without enough people to stop it noticing.
It may not be the goal of this proposal to substitute for the technical committee, but, in part, it would. If there is a 3:1 dispute over if a package should be orphaned, this process would take that dispute out of the hands of the technical committee because the voting ratio was adequate. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of a popularity contest over the adequacy of package maintenance. In practice, I think people will very rarely object when packages are clearly not maintained, so the practical difference between 3:1 ratio and without objection or go to the technical committee is not much. Where I believe it will make a difference is in preventing misapplication of this process, particularly trying to resolve social issues through a process that is supposed to be technical. Why not start with a "without objection" standard and see how it works? If it doesn't work, the consequence would be most work for the technical committee. If they complain/can't keep up, then we could look into a voting alternative. Scott K
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
