RE: [PEAR-DEV] PEAR Meeting - Summary online

> From: Alexey Borzov [mailto:borz_off@cs.msu.su] > Sent: Monday, May 19, 2003 1:28 PM > I don't quite buy your "explanation". Looking up the word "veto" in > Webster's dictionary (http://www.webster.com) yields the following: I am not selling anything. > > I will revisit the wording to make this more clear. But again this was > > an example who's purpose was not to illustrate a conflict where the PEAR > > group would act and on what scope. It was not meant was an example of > > what the exact decision would be. This is not something we discussed. > I just have. It was infact not clear that the sentences of "veto" did not mean that in the ITX vs. Sigma case the example was just about the possibility of "vetoing" but more about generally putting its foot down in this kind of cases. > BTW, did the community decide what to do with abandoned/unmaintained > packages? We briefly touched on this. PHP has a similar problem. A lot of packages that were moved to PECL were moved because they were unmaintained which created this "Siberia" image. Therefore it was decided to create a separate place for deprecated/unmaintained packages. But this is already mentioned in the summary. Regards, Lukas