Thomas Goirand wrote... > We already have RFA, where maintainers are asking for adoption. I fail > to see how a different type of bug will trigger a quicker adoption. An > ITR is going to (unfortunately) achieve the exact same thing as an RFA, > which in most cases is ... no much.
I disagree. The messages are ... RFA: If somebody wishes to take over, please get in touch. O: If you want to take over, it's yours. ITR: Somebody take over, otherwise the package will be gone soon. > See this one (of mine) as an example: > https://bugs.debian.org/880416 > > it's just bit-rotting. I've told a few people vaguely interested in the > package that I will RoM it soon. No action so far. I'm quite sure the > only path is to actually remove the package. Someone may then pick it up > because of the removal, but IMO that process can only be speed up by > actually removing the package faster, not slower. Adding an ITR wont help. Changing this to ITR would tell "This is your last chance". Assuming the ITR gets a broader audience than the RM, like d-d and the packages's qa address: It's a sign of high urgency, and anybody who is even remotely interested should stand up *now*. While RFA/O mostly show up in the weekly WNPP report, and while I read this, packages of my interest usually trigger a feeling of: While I could take some of those, looking at my time budget, I should rather not. And hopefully somebody else will jump in. Actually removing the package in the silent way it happens right now carries a high risk the next release will ship without it, as users of stable will not notice until the next dist-upgrade. So for me the anger is mostly about the silence and the (sometimes) haste of an RM. I was glad if RMs had to follow a certain procedure which boils down to notifying more places and giving a grace period of, say, two weeks. Which is what in my understanding an ITR would do. If you just don't want to introduce a new name for this augmented RM, be my guest. Christoph
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature