Re: Pending Packages List, 2004-03-13

[Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please at cygwin dot com>]

On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:59:58PM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
>Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>|I'd like to propose that if someone's ITP'd package has outstanding
>|issues, that someone cannot ITP any new packages until either the issues
>|are addressed or the package is withdrawn.
>
>I understand your thinking, but remember when I needed to ITP help2man
>in order to resolve my problems with gtypist?  May I suggest instead to
>make a limit to how many concurrent pending ITPs that someone may have,
>perhaps 5.  I think a better solution, not just for this problem but to
>prevent an overload of the ITP system in general.

I don't know.  I think I like Igor's more draconian approach better.  I
might even go so far as to say that there should be only one ITP at a
time unless there is a demonstrated need for other interrelated
packages.  So, one at a time would be the rule and you'd have to wait to
get the package entirely through the cycle before offering up another
package.

I am wondering if we should have some different voting rules, too.  I
have previously gone on record as thinking that the three vote rule is
too easy.  Maybe we need a representative council or something.

cgf