On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Gergely Nagy <alger...@balabit.hu> wrote: > >Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > >> Whether a package is in need of greater attention is not a hard and > >> fast objective thing. It's to a large part subjective. Perhaps the > >> maintainer thinks it's more or less fine, or at least low enough > >> priority that the problems are tolerable. > > > >Then the maintainer has many options, including but not limited to > >NACK-ing the ITO. One has a lot of possibilities even before it comes > >to > >filing an ITO. > > AIUI, with the current proposal, as long as three DDs think it should be > orphaned, the maintainer's objection is irrelevant.
I would send a "NACK because the maintainer objects", and I trust other DDs subscribed to debian-qa to do the same. The ITO procedure is not meant to replace the TC handling conflicts. 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/20121026064655.gk10...@master.debian.org
