On 09/06/26 at 13:59 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > 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.
Well, if everybody agreed that the introduction of Debian Commons did not cause any change in terms of processes, then we wouldn't be having that email discussion :-) > 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. 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. Lucas
