Re: OF package maintainers please vote: Scope of OF?

[Julien Bect]

Le 12/01/2017 à 12:27, c. a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> On 10 Jan 2017, at 13:51, Olaf Till <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > There are two different main concepts proposed for OF:
> >
> > 1. Simply maintain a list of packages, hosted elsewhere.
> >
> > 2. Continue to execercise some central control onto contained
> >    packages, making the package maintainers potentially bound to some
> >    majority- or admin-decisions.
> >
> > For 2., two subvariants have been proposed:
> >
> > 2.1. In addition to the controled packages, maintain a list of
> >      independent packages, checked only for some formal structural
> >      conformance, which are primarily hosted elsewhere. OF contains
> >      'copies' of the external repositories, synchronized at least at
> >      release time. The package maintainer has exclusive control, if OF
> >      decides to fork the package, a different package name must be
> >      used.
> >
> > 2.2. Only the controled packages are contained in OF.
> I am under the impression that some of my previous comments on this thread have
> been misinterpreted as suggesting version 1.

I believe it was...

> Actually what I am advocating is something closer to 2.1/2.2:
>
> Packages that are maintained in OF should be controlled and maintained 
> cooperatively,
> but we should also maintain a list of packages that are not.

I'm not sure I understand your position correctly.

Does it mean that externally-hosted packages (such as ltfat, stk, 
symbolic, etc.) would not be distributed as "OF packages" anymore, but 
would only appear on this other list you're talking about?