On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 09:14:04AM -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > On Thursday, October 11, 2012 06:44:53 PM Charles Plessy wrote: > ... > > - I am not found of the voting procedure, and would rather propose to > > follow a similar process as for the modification of the Policy and the > > Developers Reference, where at least three DDs need to indicate that, in > > their conclusion, a consensus has been reached. I think that if a package > > is orphaned with for instance a 16:3 majority, it indicates a problem > > rather than a consensus. Also if the maintainer opposes, this shows lack > > of consensus and a vote can only aggravate the situation. > ... > > I am also concerned with this. I think it should either be unanimous or > there > is a dispute the tech ctte should resolve.
I'm OK with requiring unanimous consensus, and taking it to the TC in other cases. (I wrote something similar in my previous message.) > I don't think we should introduce > voting on the quality of other DD's package maintenance. Actually I don't see any problem with peer reviews. As long as the quality of the packages is discussed, with respect for all people involved. Regards, Bart Martens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121014073345.gf...@master.debian.org
