RE: Pending Packages List, 2004-03-13

["John Morrison" <john dot r dot morrison at ntlworld dot com>]

> From: Christopher Faylor
> 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|are addressed or the package is withdrawn.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.

Even then, it might be a good idea to only have one package ITP at a time,
but to state _why_ this package is needed?  (ie, ITP help2man Required
for future ITP gtypist)

> 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.

It is usually only a few who actually vote/review :(

J.