Hi Andreas, all, Andreas Mantke wrote: > But you didn't consider the mental aspects. > I did, but I still believe that's quite minor compared to the actual development effort.
The policy as it stands now is a compromise between a number of needs (and people's ideas), where there's some barrier for moving a project into the attic, and a corresponding barrier for getting it back. Additionally, there were requests that new projects from commercial players should come with certain commitments (and those naturally transfer over into de-atticization). Beyond actually showing development (and finding support at TDF), most of the more burdensome prescriptions in the policy are merely advisory. So the ESC and/or the board can make pragmatic decisions, should an obvious case be brought forward. > But if you fork a Github repo you could make a pull request to the > upstream project. This will be blocked for an attic project by the > proposal. > Sure. But you said not being able to create pull requests leads to insurmountable barriers for new development. I dispute that; and the meta-pullrequest (which this policy specifies) is to submit a git repository hosted & developed outside the TDF realm, via the de-atticization process. Cheers, -- Thorsten
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
