Re: proposal: ITR (was Re: Removing packages perhaps too aggressively?)

[Philipp Kern <pkern@debian.org>]

On 2018-02-01 15:03, Scott Kitterman 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.  This appears to be common, but not universal, practice when
> > filing ROMs, but making it mandatory and enforced by the FTP team does
> > not seem out of line.  This has nothing to do with second guessing; it
> > is about openness to the rest of the Debian community (esp users who
> > are
> > wondering why their favorite niche package didn't make it into the 
> > next
> > release).  And as stated elsewhere in this thread, it will help a
> > prospective new maintainer know whether reintroducing the package will
> > be worth the effort.
>
> 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.
>
> If this concerns people, they can ask for more information.

Except that there is no requirement anymore to actually answer the 
question. The bug has been acted upon and closed.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern