On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 01:41:25PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Steve Langasek <vor...@debian.org> writes: > > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 01:58:16PM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote: > >> Someone wrote: > >> > I disagree on this point. If you can't get anyone to ack that you > >> > should go > >> > ahead with the orphaning, then the system is not working as designed and > >> > consensus has not been achieved. It's then incumbent on the person > >> > looking > >> > to orphan the package to rattle the cage and get developers to pay > >> > attention. > > > >> On the other hand, it is already hard to find people willing to review > >> other peoples work. Mandating acks means trusting that there will be > >> enough manpower to review something potentially unknown. I can't see > >> that happening reliably. It also makes the process a whole lot more > >> complicated than it needs to be, > > > > No, it makes the process based on *consensus*, which is a minimum > > requirement. > > It also means that the salvager has to do more work.
I expect the cc to debian-qa to draw sufficient DD's attention. And the ACKs are about agreeing on marking a package as orphaned. That's the easy part. The salvaging part goes via the existing ITA procedure. That's the hard part. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121026050907.gb10...@master.debian.org
