Orphaning package

[Patrice Dumas]

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 07:11:33PM -0400, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:
> 
> Perhaps the AWOL maintainer policy could be adapted/extended into a
> "non-responsive" maintainer policy. Not caring about a package is not a
> mark against the maintainer, but allowing it to bitrot is.

I don't think that the AWOL maintainer policy should be extended to cope
with these cases, since it seems to me to be a distinct case. But it
could certainly be adapted to have a procedure for forced
co-maintainership or forced orphaning when a packager doesn't handle the
easy to fix/proposed solution bugs in a given time.

--
Pat