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
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
