* Andreas Tille <[email protected]> [260608 11:01]: > OK, you do not consider Debian Commons part of the solution, and I can > understand the argument that Debian Commons should only be used when at > least one person explicitly wants to take ongoing responsibility for the > package. > > My reading of the current thread is that several people agree that > clucene-core appears to lack active maintenance, while there is less > agreement about the appropriate process to handle such packages. Since > the package does not seem to fit the usual MIA workflow, perhaps we > should discuss what criteria and procedure would be appropriate for > formal orphaning in such cases.
I do not understand why clucene-core "does not seem to fit the usual MIA workflow", and I suspect that this is where others are also not following your logic. What I am reading from others in this thread is that the correct way forward with this package is to start the MIA process with the remaining uploader associated with this package. You seem to be saying that there should be a way to orphan a package without either involving the MIA team or getting the blessing of the maintainer, and my question is "Why?" If there is a maintainer or uploader who is not MIA, then discuss with that person options such as orphaning the package or moving it to Debian Commons or something else. If not, then follow the MIA process. If there are multiple maintainers, and none of them are responding to both collective and individual pings, start the MIA process, letting the MIA team know the specific package you are concerned about. I think all of your "criteria" constitute unnecessary bureaucracy for a problem that already has enough bureaucracy. ...Marvin
