Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > for any action; however, if I saw good reason from the history of a > > > bug report to not do anything, then I didn't write mail at all. > > > By RFP you mean ITA? > > No, I meant: Request for Packages and Intend to Package.
Oh; I'm thinking specifically only about an ITA and a IFP. The reason for focusing on these is that an ITA or IFP functions as a brake on other Debian developers who may want to take over that package. So if the ITA/IFP is lame, and nothing will happen by whoever posted it, we should get it back to RFA/O/RFP asap so that other Debian developers who may be interested can get it. > Well, there is a list of ITA packages. Of course, you need to take a > look into the bug report if you want to see whether it's O/ITA or > RFA/ITA. Where is this list? > Well, I don't like Transfer, and I also don't like to change one of > them away. Both would be better, as then one can see whether it's just > an "old bug report", or the new one. Yeah, I'm just trying to think of a new verb. :) Nothing requires changing existing reports; I think first the goal should be to figure out "how should this look", and only after that is it worthwhile figuring out how to transition.