On 10/30/19 4:38 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella via aur-general wrote: > AUR: >> Alad deleted aur-git: >> >> Why are you submitting this again after agreeing that a name change is >> in order? > > That was the original package which was there before the discussion, and > only one day has passed. > > I haven't had time that fast for thinking a new name and requesting a > change, which I was planning to do this very week.
There's no grace period for a package which has been determined to be in violation of our admittedly spur of the moment rules. Grace periods exist only for the specific category of packages requests for orphaning a package, since the current maintainer (usually) deserves the right to justify their continued maintenance. And even that, we can resolve early. I don't understand why, once we've decided such a name is too confusing, we should put the rule on hold while you take the time to think of a new name. > I suggest that you make standard in Arch waiting a couple of days for > feedback before making unilateral decisions. We may make unilateral decisions whenever we want, subject only to internal review by fellow team members. Unilateral decisions aren't a bad thing and don't need to be cast in a negative light. We held a meeting and a bunch of team members decided to carry out this action with no active "no" votes -- no other feedback is needed, and regular users don't get a vote. There is no point in waiting. -- Eli Schwartz Bug Wrangler and Trusted User
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
