Re: Re: Rejected packages

Arnaud Limbourg wrote: > 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 ? Sure, why not. Issues that affect the whole repository should be voted on by the whole repository. PEAR group will have lots of wrangling over the details of this suggestion, I'd imagine :) Greg