1 |
On 2021-07-11 21:54, Michał Górny wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> My gut feeling is that having this distinction is useful. However, it |
4 |
> has been pointed out that we've probably never really had to use it |
5 |
> (i.e. use the "banned" argument to stop someone from using old EAPI) |
6 |
> and that the switch from "deprecated" to "banned" state did not really |
7 |
> affect porting away from old EAPI. |
8 |
|
9 |
For the benefit of those not interested in sifting through the logs of |
10 |
Council meetings, here is a quick reiteration of my take on this: |
11 |
|
12 |
1. Maybe it's my professional bend speaking but it feels to me like we |
13 |
really should establish a clear, GLEP-documented EAPI life cycle with |
14 |
well-defined meaning of individual stages. I will work on preparing a |
15 |
suitable proposal; |
16 |
|
17 |
2. Until the above has introduced a (hopefully) better system, I am all |
18 |
for removing step 2 because it makes the procedure less bureaucratic. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
On 2021-07-12 02:11, Aaron Bauman wrote: |
22 |
|
23 |
> Just officially ban it, send out a message, and use the best judgement |
24 |
> when enforcing it (should it even need to be enforced). |
25 |
|
26 |
And the point of establishing a policy doomed from start to be enforced |
27 |
weakly or not at all is? Other than making the Council look like we care |
28 |
more about theatrics than actual governance, that is. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Marecki |