On 2026-07-01 Andreas Tille <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > The proposal is intended as an optional workflow for contributors who > encounter packages that appear to lack active maintenance but who do not > wish to become the package's long-term maintainer themselves.
> It complements the existing orphaning and salvaging procedures by > providing a documented workflow for contributors willing to investigate > a package's maintenance status and prepare the necessary QA action. [...] Hello, I am very much in favour of this idea because it scratches a personal itch of mine and imho nicely complements existing processes. Preparing transitions one often finds that blocking packages are obviously unmaintained, being kept in testing by a long row of NMUs. OTOH the maintainer might be active elsewhere, lost interest, filters the mail but never looks in that folder or even worse the maintainer is set to a mailing list and nobody is taking care of that specific packages. The MIA process is not made for this, I would not want to necessarily remove people from Debian who forgot to take care of one of their packages. Another NMU just passes the hot potato to the next person whose transition is blocked. The new process allows to correctly label the package as orphaned. cu Andreas -- "You people are noisy," Nia said. I made the gesture of agreement.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
