Re: Suggestion for orphaning process

Hi,

On 6/9/26 15:07, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> As a Debian contributor, I could discover a package poorly maintained
> inside Debian Commons and might be interested in "salvaging" it to
> maintain it myself, instead of maintaining it following the Debian
> Commons procedures.  So yes, I think that it applies more broadly,
> because people outside Debian Commons will need to interface with Debian
> Commons.


When I announced Debian Commons, I didn't mean that to be a team any 
more than the QA team is the team that maintains orphaned packages. I 
don't think you "interface" with the QA team. The QA team doesn't exist 
as a team maintaining packages. I didn't intend Debian Commons to be one 
either. I wanted to express that a package that *I* intent to keep in a 
healthy state by occasional but maybe not so frequent uploads is open 
for uploads by anybody that cares about the package. Like documenting 
*in* the package that I'm on the lowNMU list. So you *could* consider 
Debian Commons as the "lowNMU team" for non team maintained packages. It 
wasn't my intention that packages could be maintained by Debian Commons 
without anyone expressing that they will care about it. That's why I 
said earlier in this thread that the Salvaging Process applies if you 
want to maintain a package in Debian Commons that you currently don't 
maintain. You stick your name on it as uploader and set Debian Commons 
as maintainer after salvaging. If you don't stick your name on it, 
Debian Commons as I meant it is not the thing (as documented on the Wiki 
[1]). I also don't intent to look after any package in Debian Commons 
that doesn't have my name on it, except when I run into an issue I care 
about.

Now, my feeling is that what tille is after is a process to orphan a 
package without having to go through MIA (the idea of that does make 
sense to me, sometimes a person isn't MIA, but still not taking care of 
a package). But orphaned packages are "maintained" by the QA team. I 
don't see why Debian Commons should be part of the equation, because we 
don't need two namespaces for packages without any maintainer.

Expectations for Debian Commons may change from what I intended as an 
outcome of discussions and that's fine (because I don't own the thing, I 
only announced an idea), but team maintenance of orphaned packages is 
*not* what *I* had in mind with it.

Paul

[1] https://wiki.debian.org/DebianCommons (second bullet of "How it works")

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=TP88
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----