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: https://www.debian.org/devel/tech-ctte 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
Description: PGP signature