Dear list, On 02/02/2022 18:46, Michael Stone wrote:
On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 10:16:36PM +0500, Andrey Rahmatullin wrote:On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 12:12:30PM -0500, Michael Stone wrote:On Wed, Feb 02, 2022 at 11:39:11AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote: > Doesn't that, then, lead to the suggestion that any package entering > unstable without having undergone NEW review (which, in the revised> model, might be every new package) should automatically have a bug filed > against it requesting suitable review, and that bug should be treated as> a blocker for entering testing?Not really, since anyone in the world could close said bug (including theuploader).This applies to any RC bug.Yes, but in this case it means that we wouldn't have that minimal standard of at least one person other than the uploader having ever reviewed the package--which I think is a fairly low bar that we should meet. (It would be even better if we could add reviews for changes, but at any rate I don't think we should go backward here.)
This is basically a question of social contracts and tooling. It can IMHO certainly be done.
But isn't this discussion on details moot until we clear out the fundamentals such as the legal risk/cost analysis of dropping the NEW queue in its current form i. e., the topic for this thread?
And not least, some input from the ftp-masters team -- this discussion is about a huge change in a process they currently manage.
Cheers, --alec