On 09/06/26 at 15:16 +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: > Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> writes: > > >> 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. > > How is that different from when someone outside of Debian Team $FOO > discovers a poorly maintained package in Debian Team $FOO? > > I've encountered that situation a couple of time, with varying levels of > success to make progress.
In that case, I think that it's obvious that the salvaging process applies. Maybe it's also true for Debian Commons and it just needs to be spelled out. Lucas
