Dear Fesco: Orphan package process needs work

[Christopher Aillon]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 11:12 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> 
>> The most important things in that whole sequence are the last two. 
>> Clearly, dropping the package impacted Fedora users negatively.  And 
>> there was community interest in maintaining the package, so it's 
>> plausible that had it been given a fair process, it wouldn't have been 
>> dropped.
> 
> Note that this is a result of the mass rebuild effort really.  Not the
> orphan process.


Call the process whatever you want, the package dropped because of 
inactivity of the maintainer (how is this different from orphaned?) 
without a fair chance for anyone to step up.  If it's not the orphan 
process, I can call it the drop package process or whatever.

In either case, something is broken.  If a package doesn't get a fair 
chance to be picked up before dropped, I'd say that's broken.  Or, if an 
auxiliary process such as mass rebuilding gets free reign to ignore 
other processes, then that is broken.