Florian Schmaus <f...@gentoo.org> writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > On 18/07/2023 11.56, Sam James wrote: >> Mike Gilbert <flop...@gentoo.org> writes: >> >>> On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:27 PM Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>>> Haven't we been keeping these because we still need to decide on a >>>>> policy about what to do with dead acct-*/* packages? >>>> >>>> Right. https://bugs.gentoo.org/781881 is still open. Flow could ping >>>> the QA team and ask if it should be closed, given the opinion there >>>> seems to be that there's no need to keep them, but I think it's wrong >>>> to do this pre-empting a policy decision, given it essentially forces >>>> the "don't keep them" path. >>> >>> The bug has been open for several months without comment. If a policy >>> were going to materialize, I think it would have happened by now. >>> >>> Forcing the issue by sending this last rites notice seems acceptable to me. >> Pinging someone rather than "forcing the issue" as a first-step is >> customary. > > I am sorry, but it seems that I have to clarify something. > > First, I have "pinged someone."
Ping on IRC (in #gentoo-qa, or could PM me), or again on the bug? Someone asked the QA team to make a decision. We haven't yet, as I'd forgot about it. It seems wrong to then just pretend that didn't happen. At least try to get it resolved on that end by pinging again / asking us? > > As of writing this, I was the last to comment on the QA bug about five > months ago, asking why we would want to keep unused acct-* packages > [1]. Since then, this has not been answered, and there have been zero > other replies. That signaled me that there was no interest in pursuing > the matter further. In addition, we have already removed acct-* > packages in the past. > I'm sorry that somebody missed a ping in a FOSS project. But this is probably not the first time it's happened to you. > Secondly, nobody immediately forces anything. > I'm saying that speaking to someone works better than committing something and then asking for discussion. > Sam, I am afraid, but I believe that the situation is different from > how you frame it. > > > The proponents of keeping obsolete acct-* packages have the inventive > to establish their preferred policy. It's a bit aggressive to take action, without pinging before doing so (you did several months ago, that's not really the same thing), to "incentivise" someone. > > Accusing me of not facilitating a QA bug that deals with establishing > a policy I do not favor seems unfair. > I'm not sure I'm doing that. I'm saying that doing this preempts a decision and that a ping would've been polite. > Do you think that a QA bug that has not seen progress in nearly five > months should be able to establish an illegitimate shadow policy? > Come on.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
