Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version

[Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>]

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Bug#841294: Overrule maintainer of "global" to package a new upstream version"):
> [Ron:]
> > I'm appalled at the status quo.  My concern is that we don't make
> > that even worse with uninformed decisions.  In the absence of good
> > information, sometimes the best thing to do is be patient until
> > more of it arrives.
> 
> I agree with this.  On the other hand, waiting forever isn't productive
> either, which I think is where a lot of Vincent's frustration comes
> from, that it's hard to know when we've waited «long enough».

Some years ago.

> I'm leaning towards dropping htags, since that seems to have problems
> security-wise (the idea of generated CGIs don't fill me with joy, at
> least, and hopefully not many others either), and also has a lot less
> value today than it used to back in the days.

I don't think the TC should be stepping in to make these kind of
decisions about the package.  Rather, the TC should give the package
to the people who want to do the work and are currently blocked.

There is IMO no indication that the prospective new maintainers would
do a bad job or that their strategy for dealing with this CGI problem
(to wit, removing the feature) is inappropriate.  The maintainer's
comments about this are FUD.  The level of demand for this feature
would have to be very substantial for it to justify leaving this
package at such an ancient version for years and years.  Also, it is
not right to reverse the burden of proof this way: the maintainer is
suggesting that the feature could only be removed, to unblock a new
upstream version, if it could somehow be proved that people don't need
this feature.  Well, we don't know how many people use this feature
but we do know that the package right now is in bad shape.

The maintainer here has only engaged on this issue because the TC has
become involved, despite extensive efforts by several contributors to
unblock things.  IMO explanations now are too late.

Furthermore, the TC should make a decision rapidly so that a fixed
version of the package can be in stretch.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.