Re: Re: Rejected packages

Gregory Beaver wrote: > Bertrand Mansion wrote: >> Hi, >> >> There are 2-3 packages which have recently been rejected because not >> enough people voted. This is holiday season for some I guess. >> I think it should be added in the PEAR constitution that members of the >> PEAR Group (or PEAR QA) must vote, in order to make sure there is enough >> votes when the proposal reaches end date. Otherwise the developer will >> feel disappointed by the lack of interest for his proposal (even if >> sometimes the proposals touch very specialized subjects). >> >> I suggest the rejected proposals get one more week. > > Hi, > > I would suggest we ditch PEAR-wide PEPr and instead allow collectives to > make decisions about whether a related package should be accepted. This > will make it a lot more attractive to propose packages, and the folks > who actually have some active knowledge of the package's innards will be > making the acceptance decision. Keeping PePr for RFC ? Arnaud.