On 11/10/12 at 10:21 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum <lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net> writes: > > > On 11/10/12 at 05:50 +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > >> | Anyone can mark a package as orphaned after the following steps have > >> been > >> | completed : Someone submits an "intent to orphan" (ITO) in the bts > >> with an > >> | explanation of why he/she thinks that the package needs a new > >> maintainer. The > >> | explanation should cover aspects like how long there was no visible > >> activity, > >> | whether there are NMUs not yet acknowledged, wheter the package > >> blocks progress > >> | elsewhere in Debian, release critical bugs, public comments from the > >> maintainer > >> | revealing lack of interest in the package, ... etc. The bug must > >> have severity > >> | "serious" and a cc must be sent to the debian-qa mailing list. > >> Anyone can > >> | submit this "intent to orphan". At least three DDs (not counting the > >> initial > >> | submitter) second the "intent to orphan" on the same bug report with > >> a cc to > >> | the maintainer. If some DDs send NACKs instead, then a 3/1 majority > >> is needed > >> | between ACKers and NACKers. > > > >> And the maintainer does not respond within one month after the the third > >> second. > > > > I'm not sure about this delay. This procedure should be used for > > uncontroversial cases, where orphaning is obviously the right choice. > > I strongly agree here. A package that's a salvaging candidate has > already been neglected far too long, requiring another extra month of at > most NMU-maintainance is counter productive. > > A maintainer has many ways to signal in advance that he/she will be > unable to answer bug reports or mail for a longer period of time > (including VAC messages on -private, and/or setting a vacation message > in LDAP), many of which can and should be checked as soon as the > salvaging process starts, to make sure there's no accidental overlap. > > With that done, I do not see the point of waiting an extra month. I > would, however, put a time limit on the NACKs: one week after 3 ACKs or > 3/1 majority is reached, the decision's done, and further ACKs/NACKs > won't be counted. That is, we'd have a time limit on everyones ability > to contribute to the salvaging process, not just a ticking clock for the > maintainer.
OK > > Maybe rephrase that into "Before taking action, it could also be a good > > idea to wait for comments from the maintainer, especially if he/she is > > otherwise active in Debian." > > I'd rephrase that further, with a s/wait for/seek/, because in my > opinion, the person wanting to salvage a package should go to great > lengths to reach the maintainer. Merely waiting when the package is > obviously neglected sounds like a very passive thing to me. OK. What is considered "sufficiently seeking for comments" can probably be decided on a case-by-case basis (i.e., people should not ACK before the waiting time is considered sufficient by them). Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-qa-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121012150135.ga26...@xanadu.blop.info
