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
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
