Re: [gentoo-dev] [RFC] Changes to EAPI ban workflow

[Marek Szuba <marecki@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1310 bytes --]

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


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]