Re: Hijacking^W^W^W^W^W^WSalvaging packages for fun and profit: A proposal
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 09:14:04AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> On Thursday, October 11, 2012 06:44:53 PM Charles Plessy wrote:
> ...
> > - I am not found of the voting procedure, and would rather propose to
> > follow a similar process as for the modification of the Policy and the
> > Developers Reference, where at least three DDs need to indicate that, in
> > their conclusion, a consensus has been reached. I think that if a package
> > is orphaned with for instance a 16:3 majority, it indicates a problem
> > rather than a consensus. Also if the maintainer opposes, this shows lack
> > of consensus and a vote can only aggravate the situation.
> ...
>
> I am also concerned with this. I think it should either be unanimous or there
> is a dispute the tech ctte should resolve.
I'm OK with requiring unanimous consensus, and taking it to the TC in other
cases. (I wrote something similar in my previous message.)
> I don't think we should introduce
> voting on the quality of other DD's package maintenance.
Actually I don't see any problem with peer reviews. As long as the quality of
the packages is discussed, with respect for all people involved.
Regards,
Bart Martens
Reply to: