[aur-general] AUR - 'kernel26' search results

[Peter Lewis]

On Tuesday 21 September 2010 at 01:50 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 02:22 +0200, Ulf Winkelvos wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> > all requests are send to the mailing list. So TUs still have full
> > control, but ist pretty handy for users that are not on the ml.
> 
> If they're not on the ML, a mechanism should be added for reporters to
> give reasons why packages should be disowned or removed. For some cases
> discussion will also be done here on the ML, would the reporter than not
> be part of the discussion?

I agree with this too am working towards implementing it.

Since there are only certain given reasons for the deletion of a package (no 
sources available, no longer builds on current systems, duplicated elsewhere, 
source control system changed etc.) these could be check boxes to prompt the 
person proposing the deletion to think about these issues before clicking the 
button. There should also be a text field with which to elaborate.

If all this is then sent to the mailing list automatically in a standard 
email, then it makes it very clear why the deleltion is being requested, by 
whom, the name of the package and a link to it. This can also alert the 
current maintainer (say in a cc). A discussion can then follow on the list in 
the usual way before a TU makes the final decision.

I think this is likely to actually increase the signal to noise ratio in 
deletion request emails, since it will make the proposer think and be more 
likely to provide the needed information straight away.

Cheers,

Pete.

PS. I agree with Heiko though that these issues (including orphaning and 
duplicate flagging are not democratic issues, they're just about establishing 
fact. Voting isn't needed.)