Am Freitag, den 02.02.2018, 09:32 +0100 schrieb Thomas Goirand: [...] > O: Package is unmaintained, hurry or the package is in danger to be > removed.
I risk to differ, if this were so, we wouldn't have +700 packages that have the QA team as maintainer, and quite a few have a five or even six-figure popcorn. Orphaning a package does not imply an intent to remove the package and apparently quite a number of packages don't need much maintainance apart from a binary rebuild once in a while. > If you introduce ITR, then RFA will become meaningless. Let's not do > that and improve the RM bug procedure as you suggest below. Anyway, I also think that an extra ITR is not needed, but the RMs should be more visible if they don't just relate to cruft. For instance for packages that are not RC buggy or have other important reasons to be removed and are not yet orphaned it would be nice if the package would be orphaned before removal is requested to give others the opportunity to take over, maybe in this case with a tag "removal pending if not adopted within X weeks". [...] My 2 cents, Gert
