Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> writes: > [[PGP Signed Part:Undecided]] > > 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?
Just to be super duper clear: it's fine with me if we just move on and don't keep the packages, but I think a quick /msg #gentoo-qa "hey guys, nothing seems to be happening with the bug, do you mind if we just close it?" wouldn't have gone amiss. That is _all_ I'm asking for here. And then when we get onto talk of "incentives" and "illegitimate shadow policies", I become very confused indeed.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
