Re: Quality Assurance Group mini-policy
Josip Rodin <joy@cibalia.gkvk.hr> writes:
> [was it really neccessary to crosspost to three lists?]
I think all three are appropriate but if you have a suggestion I would
be open to hearing it.
> Currently, they have no right to do absolutely anything on their own,
> and we want to change that.
They should not have that right IMO, but that is a discussion for
another thread.
> The forced orphaning (as you call it) is something we need, since there
> can be packages that can currently rot for a couple of releases (yes!)
> in the archive, and nobody has the right to touch them, since nobody
> knows where is the maintainer and will he mind.
The mechanism for handling AWOL maintainers needs to be well-thought
if we are going to attempt to codify it. The presented policy which
puts these decisions into the hands of the QA group, and with a
definition that does not even reflect their own intent, does not seem
acceptable to me.
> Did I mention that I will accept any patches you (or anyone else) makes
> against the text? Output of `diff -u` is preffered.
I would just remove the paragraph defining QAs ability to orphan
packages. I think that something more along the lines of a policy
that QA will bring to public attention those packages that are not
being maintained.
I think that this wording will allow QA to do their task, but would
not hastily encode some power to "force orphan" packages. Section 3.2
and 8.1 of the constitution indicate that Project Leader Delegates can
make such decisions. They do not need to have that power granted to
them in order to accomplish their task.
--
Craig Brozefsky <craig@red-bean.com>
Less matter, more form! - Bruno Schulz
ignazz, I am truly korrupted by yore sinful tzourceware. -jb
The Osmonds! You are all Osmonds!! Throwing up on a freeway at dawn!!!
Reply to: