Re: proposal: ITR (was Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?)
* Scott Kitterman <email@example.com> [180201 09:04]:
> On February 1, 2018 1:47:17 PM UTC, Marvin Renich <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >I agree that the FTP team should not second guess the maintainer's
> >removal request. However, with or without a new ITR process, I think
> >it would be justified (and good practice) for the FTP team to start
> >requiring the maintainer to record in the bug the reasoning behind
> >the removal.
> While I agree that would be best, I don't think it's the primary
> purpose of an rm bug. It doesn't take an FTP team member to ping the
> maintainer to ask why, cc the bug.
I think the RM bug should include both what is being requested (removal)
and why. I think the two are closely related enough that they should
share the title of "primary purpose".
However, I know that you and the rest of the FTP team do a tremendous
amount of work (thank you very much!), so I will concede that this is
one item that should be the responsibility of the bug filer and doesn't
need to be on your plate.
> If this concerns people, they can ask for more information.
True, but that happens after the fact, and sometimes time has a way of
helping information to get lost.