Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I did take 6 months for an ITP, and one year for a RFP as lower limit > for any action; however, if I saw good reason from the history of a > bug report to not do anything, then I didn't write mail at all.
By RFP you mean ITA? I think six months and a year is a really long time; the idea I have in mind is that after say a month it is reasonable to ask: how are things going? can we help? I favor solutions which are faster, but which ask whether things are going ok, than solutions which are slower and can be done without interaction. > > Also, a separate question: packages which transitioned from O to ITA > > are still officially orphaned, but we don't track them at > > http://qa.debian.org/orphaned.html, right? > > AFAICS, yes. We track them however at other places. Where? > > Finally, there seems to be a bug in the WNPP labels, because an ITA > > package could be either orphaned (and about to be adopted), or > > maintained with an RFA (and about to be adopted). Those are very > > different states from a QA standpoint; if it is RFA->ITA then the old > > and new maintainers have collective responsibility; but if it is > > O->ITA, then QA has the responsibility. > > Well, yes. But that's just the way it is. ;) > (Do you have two new nice lables? If so, please tell.) Well, perhaps we could change RFA/ITA to RFT/ITT, which would mean "Request for Transfer" and "Intent to Transfer"?