* Anthony Towns ([email protected]) [060302 12:11]: > On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 08:51:10AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > ] So I propose we establish a rule that we won't make decisions on > > > > ] issues that aren't ready for an immediate NMU when we make that > > > > ] decision. > > BTW, I think something similar should be done, but not as strict as in > > this resolution draft. But let's discuss about that seperate from voting > > details.
> So, we're considering whether ndiswrapper should be moved to contrib atm. > We don't actually have a package that we could upload to do that though -- > should we decline to consider the issue without it? If we were to vote in > favour of moving to contrib, and had a package we could upload it immediately, > and request ftpmaster (eg, me) to process it straight away, and we'd be done. > OTOH, without it, we'd either have to do it ourselves, or hope the maintainer > was willing to. In the case of ndiswrapper, I think we want such a package, yes. But consider e.g. a similar case where the maintainer of a new package asks us "please decide where the package should go to" - in that case, there is nothing to NMU (another problem occurs if we are asked to decide/overrule in a case where the tech ctte doesn't have direct possibilities to commit a change - in that case, I think we should require "a patch exists"). So, I think the resolution should rather run like: We establish a rule that we won't make decisions on issues that are ready. This means, - for overruling a package maintainer's decision, an appropriate package for an NMU exists, and if we overrule, we upload that NMU; - for other overrulings, an appropriate patch exists, and if we overrule and someone from the tech ctte can apply that patch, we apply it; - for other decisions, we make sure a similar state of readiness exists. (Just a draft.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
