On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 09:51:12PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 07:45:35PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > I think this is where language is important. In my opinion, the term > > "adoption" will continue to mean taking on full responsibility for a > > package as its new maintainer. The term "salvage", in my opinion, we > > can define as a process for becoming a co-maintainer on a package with > > a long-term possibility of becoming its maintainer. > > This is an unhelpful redefinition of the term. The term "salvage" was > introduced to *mean* orphaning/adopting a package when the maintainer is no > longer fulfilling their responsibilities.
I agree with Steve on this. Let's not redefine the term now, since it would introduce more confusion, and it would not bring us closer to a consensus on the proposal. The proposal is about an "intent to orphan", which is in obvious cases easy to find a consensus on. The real salvaging (the hard work) happens via the existing ITA procedure. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121026053726.gd10...@master.debian.org
