On August 5, 2018 2:17:04 PM UTC, Adam Borowski <kilob...@angband.pl> wrote:
>On Sun, Aug 05, 2018 at 01:20:47PM +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>> Package 'salvaging' is about an involuntary change of maintainer
>involving
>> someone who is sufficiently active in the project not to be MIA.
>It's
>> fundamentally different.
>>
>> I suspect it's constitutionally sufficient for the TC to approve the
>> salvaging process as long as the process allows them to resolve
>related
>> disputes.
>
>But there is _no_ dispute. All the maintainer has to do is to close
>the ITS
>bug within a month. Thus, if the bug remains unanswered, there is no
>one
>who would want to dispute the bug. And not even a temporary
>incapacitation
>is a problem: for an ITS to be filed, you'd need to neglect the package
>quite a while, thus the package was effectively unmaintained for much
>longer
>than a month.
>
>Involving the TC is a heavyweight process, and is fit for when there's
>an
>actual disagreement. A disagreement requires two parties, with ITS one
>of
>them is gone.
So a maintainer misses one email and anything goes?
I have packages that look somewhat unmaintained that aren't. I may seem
somewhat oversensitive on this, but I recently discovered a 'maybe we should
remove this package' bug on one of my packages that I'd missed the mail when it
came in.
TC is also supposed to set technical policy (including "contents of ...
developers' reference materials"). I agree that invoking the TC for each
salvaging decision is heavyweight, likely excessively so, but that isn't what I
am suggesting. I'm suggesting that they review and approve the salvaging
POLICY (once and done, assuming they approve).
Scott K
