Bart Martens <ba...@debian.org> wrote:
>On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: >> Gergely Nagy <alger...@balabit.hu> wrote: >> >Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: >> >> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard >and >> >> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps >the >> >> maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough >> >> priority that the problems are tolerable. >> > >> >Then the maintainer has many options, including but not limited to >> >NACK-ing the ITO. One has a lot of possibilities even before it >comes >> >to >> >filing an ITO. >> >> AIUI, with the current proposal, as long as three DDs think it should >be >> orphaned, the maintainer's objection is irrelevant. > >I would send a "NACK because the maintainer objects", and I trust other >DDs >subscribed to debian-qa to do the same. The ITO procedure is not meant >to >replace the TC handling conflicts. But as written, it does. It should be changed. Scott K -- 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/99822e4d-662e-4589-ae72-5a017906b...@email.android.com
