Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Changes to EAPI ban workflow

[Aaron Bauman]

On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 11:38:18AM +0100, Marek Szuba wrote:
> On 2021-07-11 21:54, Michał Górny wrote:
>
> > My gut feeling is that having this distinction is useful.  However, it
> > has been pointed out that we've probably never really had to use it
> > (i.e. use the "banned" argument to stop someone from using old EAPI)
> > and that the switch from "deprecated" to "banned" state did not really
> > affect porting away from old EAPI.
>
> For the benefit of those not interested in sifting through the logs of
> Council meetings, here is a quick reiteration of my take on this:
>
> 1. Maybe it's my professional bend speaking but it feels to me like we
> really should establish a clear, GLEP-documented EAPI life cycle with
> well-defined meaning of individual stages. I will work on preparing a
> suitable proposal;
>
> 2. Until the above has introduced a (hopefully) better system, I am all for
> removing step 2 because it makes the procedure less bureaucratic.
>
>
> On 2021-07-12 02:11, Aaron Bauman wrote:
>
> > Just officially ban it, send out a message, and use the best judgement
> > when enforcing it (should it even need to be enforced).
>
> And the point of establishing a policy doomed from start to be enforced
> weakly or not at all is? Other than making the Council look like we care
> more about theatrics than actual governance, that is.
>
> --
> Marecki
>

It is not theatrics. It is a policy that was effective in the past and
is used in lieu of a technical measure. Albeit, it is unlikely to be
enforced because most people abide by the deprecation warnings.

-Aaron