On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 11:32:39AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I think RFPs are all but useless, and that an ITP does not automatically
> translate into an RFP anyway - a stale ITP may mean that the proposer is no
> longer interested in the package at all, not that they want someone else to
> package it because they've run out of time. So I would propose closing
> stale ITPs outright, not converting them to RFPs.
This is a very interesting point: I completely agree.
Consider indeed the (unfortunately quite common) scenario of "ego ITP",
i.e. a maintainer which wants to upload her pet package which nobody
else cares about. At some point she lose interest, time passes, we
rename it to RFP, and at that point it *seems* there is a (user) request
to package a software which nobody cares about. It's way better to close
abandoned ITPs, if there is interest they will be reopened later on or
submitted corresponding RFPs.
Regarding the delay, I'm myself in a battle against Debian inertia here
and there: 6 months seem appropriate to me.
Note that here I'm assuming that the delay is counted since "last
action" on the bug log, not since initial opening. I understand this
cause problems in case where the activity has mostly been pings from
other users, but to have an automatic tool that seems the only possible
way to me.
Thanks Lucas for having set up the script again!
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..| . |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature