Raphael Herzog said:
>Le Tue, Jul 17, 2001 at 12:02:18PM +0200, Martin Michlmayr écrivait:
>> Basically, I tried to come up with what a QA committee could actually
>> do. And, well, I couldn't find anything. So I suggest to officially
>> close the committee down. However, perhaps not coming up with good
>> ideas was only a lack of my imagination. If you have any good ideas
>> why we need a QA committee, let me know.
>
>The QA committed had several goals at the beginning :
>- coordinating the effort (unfortunately since very few people work on QA
> we don't neede much coordination)
>- taking final decision when we have to orphan a package or when an NMU is
> required but the usual rules have not been followed
> Again, here you're doing well for the first part with your MIA database
> and the second part is not a big deal since very few NMUs are
> problematic (even official rules are not always followed (particularly
> about the amount of time to wait)).
>
>So, I agree, let's close the QA committe.
Just one question before all this happens:
I just sent a note about the "infocom" packages, for which the maintainer
is MIA, the product is dead upstream, and anyone using it should really be
using one of the alternatives.
Who has the authority to remove a package in this state, and forestall
angry complaints should the maintainer come back some years in the
future? Well, the QA committee clearly does. Without a QA committee, who
would feel comfortable doing this? If lots of people on this list would
feel comfortable, then there's no problem. If not, then maybe the QA
committee has a purpose.
--Nathanael Nerode
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
