So maybe we need to improve the way changing maintainership works. Having a "Give up for adoption" button (that keeps the current maintainer while allowing anybody to adopt the package) in addition to "Disown" is one possibility. What is the point of the "disown" button then, if it does the same thing as "request for deletion"?
There are two possible things at play here that a maintainer might want to do:
1) "I want the package to be deleted." 2) "I want a new maintainer to find this package (e.g. because I don't use this software anymore, but other users and packages still depend on it)."
Until now, we could use "request for deletion" for (1), and "disown" for (2). Now that you're making "disown" work like "request for deletion", we have two redundant mechanisms for (1), and none for (2). Adding a third mechanism like you suggest is a possibility, but why not just have one for each like we did until now?
I think this "Free for adoption" would be a nice feature: 1) "Request for delete" := This package is not needed anymore 2) "Request for adoption" := I will continue maintaining this package (because I think it is important), but I'd like to give it up because I don't want to do this anymore. 3) "Orphaned" := Ok, now I can't maintain this anymore (e.g. because different hardware). Someone needs to adopt is or we will delete it soon (maybe as soon as it will be outdated) Additionally: Installing an orphaned package is maybe not a good idea (outdated, ...). However "Free For adoption" just means: Only the maintainer will change soon (if someone is found), but in the meantime the package is still taken care of.