> I agree. > Removal request by maintainers are fine. > Removal requests by anyone for un-maintained packages are ok. > Removal requests by third-parties for packages with a maintainer are > a situation to take a closer look at least.
Without: 1) my ftpteam hat on 2) any specific reference to this individual situation 3) this being a direct reply to the above (this isn't about your email gregor, I totally understand what you're saying; and I think if this was on a package that had recent uploads it would have triggered some additional scrutiny, which means we would do most of the above as status-quo) I will note a removal being done against a maintainer's wishes is incredibly rare. I think among the thousands of removals I've watched, I can not remember another instance of a removal being done to a package where the maintainer disagreed. This is all to say, adding to the layers of burden when processing a removal that was properly filed, and passed the sniff test (RoQA is inherently not by the maintainer, and the package /looked/ unmaintained, even if it wasn't in reality) for an issue that has only happened -- as far as I know -- once in modern history, would be a tough outcome. I don't see people weaponizing the removal process, and it seems like a pretty straight-forward thing to address if folks started to maliciously file removals. This specific situation seems unfortunate. I have every confidence the maintainers involved will collaborate in a good faith effort to move the distro forward. If that means re-uploading pm-utils, a fast-track trip through NEW isn't hard. I don't think this would impact any of our users in any meaningful sense (package is still installed, plus it's sid) -- I don't think a change to the process is warranted. This seems like a social problem folks ought to work through. Paul
