> From: Christopher Faylor > On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:59:58PM -0500, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: > >Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > >|I'd like to propose that if someone's ITP'd package has outstanding > >|issues, that someone cannot ITP any new packages until either the issues > >|are addressed or the package is withdrawn. > > > >I understand your thinking, but remember when I needed to ITP help2man > >in order to resolve my problems with gtypist? May I suggest instead to > >make a limit to how many concurrent pending ITPs that someone may have, > >perhaps 5. I think a better solution, not just for this problem but to > >prevent an overload of the ITP system in general. > > I don't know. I think I like Igor's more draconian approach better. I > might even go so far as to say that there should be only one ITP at a > time unless there is a demonstrated need for other interrelated > packages.
Even then, it might be a good idea to only have one package ITP at a time, but to state _why_ this package is needed? (ie, ITP help2man Required for future ITP gtypist) > So, one at a time would be the rule and you'd have to wait to > get the package entirely through the cycle before offering up another > package. > > I am wondering if we should have some different voting rules, too. I > have previously gone on record as thinking that the three vote rule is > too easy. Maybe we need a representative council or something. It is usually only a few who actually vote/review :( J.
