On Thu, 22 Feb 2018, Wookey <woo...@wookware.org> wrote:
> Anyway, Pirate - I suggest you ask about this on debian-devel where we
> can have a pulic discussion about policy and whether there is anything
> special about this case which makes it not suitable software for the
> archive.

This would probably have been a much better approach than the course
that was taken.

The private discussion with Thorsten that was forwarded to the bug
seemed not to have been followed through to any sort of conclusion
before escalation to the TC.

Also, the questions that Don was trying to explore about why there was a
need for the dependencies in the first place went unanswered. Presumably
because the whole thing is moot now that the package has been accepted.

If that was the reason for not responding to Don, it would have been
polite to close the bug at that point.

If on the other hand one is still expecting clarification on some
outstanding point (despite the fact that the original purpose of the bug
is now gone) then it would probably be wise to say so explicitly.

In the absence of any of that, my only regret is that we didn't reject
the bug at the outset for not really having bothered with steps 1-3 here:


I'm confident that we can all learn from this experience, and hope we
will do a better job next time.

Cheers, Phil.
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to