Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> writes: > I think that the current discussion could be expressed in terms of > states and transitions. > We used to have two states: > (M) "packages with, officially, a maintainer", > and (O) "orphaned packages". > > We have a process for (O)->(M) (adoption), two processes for > (M)->(O) depending on who initiates it (orphaning if maintainer, > forced-orphaning by MIA team), and a process for (M)->(M') (salvaging). > > Now we have an additional state, (W) "package with weak ownership in > Debian Commons". I think that it would be useful to identify the > processes for:
Why do you think Debian Commons introduce a new state? There has been no change to policy, so I think a much simpler approach is to view Debian Commons is like any other non-human Maintainer field. That semantics isn't entirely well-defined, but I don't think putting packaging under a Debian Commons team designation carry any particular weight beyond those semantics for which the people working under the Debian Commons umbrella chose to apply. Which is, as is the case with most (if not all) teams in Debian, somewhat subjective and in a continous phase of discussion, with written-down policies normally out of style with significant portion of the actual content of the archive. Which has its advantages and disadvantages. Having stringent rules on how to make progress is not a pre-requisite for progress. Your questions are spot on, and I agree it would be nice to have them answered, but I think they are better framed as Debian Commons internal team discussions rather than any global Debian policy change. At least initially, until answers are clear and documented... was that your intention? I read it as applying more broadly. /Simon > (O)->(W): adoption? but is that really adoption? > (W)->(O): salvaging? who is authoritative otherwise? > (M)->(W) by the maintainer: obvious > (M)->(W) by someone else: focus of this discussion > (W)->(M): who is authoritative to decide that one can take strong > ownership of a package that was previsously weakly-owned by many? > > Note that described like that, (M)->(W) can be achieved by > (M)--[salvaging]-->(M')-->(W). That it, using the salvaging process, > someone could take over ownership and then decide to turn it into weak > ownership. > > But still, I think that other transitions should be specified... > > Lucas > >
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
