On Tuesday, February 1, 2022 12:18:07 PM EST Russ Allbery wrote: > Wookey <wookey@wookware.org> writes: > > For what it is worth I concur with everything that Russ has written, and > > would like to have us look at this again (and that's honestly not > > particularly because I currenly have the honour of the 6th-oldest > > package in NEW (8 months) :-) In general I have found NEW valuable as > > FTP-masters sometimes spot things that I missed, but the delay, and > > perhaps worse, the highly uncertain length of the delay (anything from a > > day to a year), is a significant cost and drag, and it seems > > increasingly anachronistic as the rest of the software ecosystem seems > > to accelerate around us (not entirely a good thing, of course). Who > > needs quality when you can have updates, eh? > > I would hate to entirely lose the quality review that we get via NEW, but > I wonder if we could regain many those benefits by setting up some sort of > peer review system for new packages that is less formal and less > bottlenecked on a single team than the current NEW processing setup. It's my impression that review of copyright and license considerations when not going through New is not a priority for most. I doubt making New go away will make it more so. This doesn't need a change in policy for New to start work on. If we're going to go in this direction, I think such a mechanism would need to be established and demonstrated to be effective. No reason this can't be done with existing packages to establish the concept. Scott K
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.