On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 05:09:07AM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > 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. Exactly. Anyone who can't be bothered to find N other DDs to agree with him that a package should be orphaned (for some value of N <= 3 - as far as I'm concerned, 1 or 2 acks w/ 0 nacks is sufficient) shouldn't be considering themselves a candidate for maintaining the package anyway. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
