* Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> [250221 13:51]: > I've kept a couple of people in CC who spotted some misuse of the ITS > process in the case of vtgrab.
Thank you. > To avoid this in the case of dotconf I > intend to orphan dotconf which was now moved to the Debian/ team[4]. > I'm aware that orphaning can be only done by the maintainer - but what > if > > 1. the maintainer has done the last upload more than 15 years ago > 2. does not respond to some email after 21 (when this ITS bug was opened) > 3. the package "survived" thanks to 3 NMUs and is de facto > QA maintained You are right that I personally would disagree that ITS is the correct procedure here. I also see that we seem to have at least a stall on MIA processes (sorry if this is just my perception), and I think it would be beneficial to have a process which: a) moves a package to the Debian QA Group b) does not impact the membership status of the previous maintainer This process could also be applicable in cases where individual maintainers are active, but ignore a specific package. I don't know which criteria are useful and/or socially acceptable. Something similar to the ITS criteria for eligibility would seem okay to *me* personally. Thanks for reaching out. Best, Chris
