On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 06:10:16PM +0000, Bart Martens wrote: > > I don't know what to make of the "seconds" suggestion by Bart, though. I > > understand the rationale, but is not clear to me how to raise the > > interest by other DDs in reviewing the "intent to orphan" bugs filed by > > 3rd parties. Maybe we should document to post them on -qa? That *might* > > have the side-effect of fostering the creation of a review community for > > these kind of actions on -qa. Mumble mumble... > > Posting them on -qa sounds like a good idea to me. Can you elaborate on that > "side-effect" ? I don't understand that part. I just meant that if we encourage to post seconds (which are in fact just a form of review of the intention to orphan) on a list such as -qa (which is more specific-purpose than, say, -devel), we might end up attracting there people who have an interest in doing this sort of package quality review. That sounds like a useful side-effect to me. But I'm still unsure about the benefits of the seconds principle, though. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . zack@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature