(Cutting down the bugs cc'ed, as this does not need to be in the unrelated bugs.)
On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 10:29:22AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Am Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 07:12:27AM +0100 schrieb Joost van Baal-Ilić: > > > IMHO the dotconf example shows that these established procedures do not > > > seem to be sufficient. > > > > IMHO it does not show that. There are no long-unfixed RC bugs in dotconf. > > I tend to disagree. We have two bugs with patches. One is 6 years old > and is affecting the functionality of the package (#913337) and one is 3 > years old about multiarch:same. Both did not received any answer. If > we are honest about "Our Priorities are Our Users" we can't ignore such > things and just care for RC bugs. Those bugs can be fixed via NMU, there is no need to orphan the package for this. > Probably we need to discuss the term "not actively maintained by > maintainer" but IMHO examples like this should be included into the > consideration. > > > If > > people would like to take over long term maintenanceship of dotconf, I'd > > suggest these people should just talk to Shane. > > MIA team found out that all emails we know are not working. So this is > no option. (If you want take over long term maintainership, your process of choice is the ITS process.) -- tobi
