On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 12:45:21PM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Gergely Nagy <[email protected]> wrote: > >Ian Jackson <[email protected]> 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 [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
