On 24/10/12 at 08:17 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > That could work either way. If you're in such a rush to build consensus you > could change 3/1 ACK/NACK ratio to without objection (objections result in > disputes resolved by the tech ctte) and have a +1 from me. > > The problem is that once in place these rules are rather harder to change. > While you have in mind a certain set of packages this rule should be applied > to, there's nothing preventing it from being applied in incorrect cases. > > The popularity contest aspect of the current rule creates a risk that > maintainers that make unpopular, but technically correct, choices will have > their packages orphaned out from under them.
I am quite sure that we will find many DDs (me included) willing to NACK all proposals of "stealing" packages from technically-correct, active, but unpopular maintainers. And you can even drop "technically-correct" from my sentence. The goal of this proposal is not to substitute for the technical committee. Really, I don't see how a cabal could abuse this recommended procedure without enough people to stop it noticing. Lucas -- 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/20121025081548.ga1...@xanadu.blop.info
