Re: Splitting ITA into two

2004-11-09 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Mon, Nov 08, 2004 at 06:29:18PM +, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > I don't really know whether it's worth doing. In particular, I'm not > very happy about changing practices which many people know of. It's > bad enough to teach people that it's O: and not ITO: and changing it > again now wouldn'

Re: Splitting ITA into two

2004-11-08 Thread Martin Michlmayr
I don't really know whether it's worth doing. In particular, I'm not very happy about changing practices which many people know of. It's bad enough to teach people that it's O: and not ITO: and changing it again now wouldn't help... Instead, I think energy should be put into moving WNPP away fro

Re: Splitting ITA into two

2004-11-07 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 10:17:59PM +0100, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 07:54:54PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > This has been discussed before[1], but it'd really be nice to have a > > distinction between an ITA in response to a RFA, and an ITA in response > > to an

Re: Splitting ITA into two

2004-11-07 Thread Frank Lichtenheld
On Sun, Nov 07, 2004 at 07:54:54PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > This has been discussed before[1], but it'd really be nice to have a > distinction between an ITA in response to a RFA, and an ITA in response > to an O. Ok, my first guess was "nice to have", my second one was "but has this

Splitting ITA into two

2004-11-07 Thread Jeroen van Wolffelaar
This has been discussed before[1], but it'd really be nice to have a distinction between an ITA in response to a RFA, and an ITA in response to an O. Since an orphaned package has by definition no real maintainer, why not use "Intent To Maintain" for the latter use? To make it consequent, we could