Fair enough. I'm a bit concerned that often evaluations of the quality/usefulness of something are subjective (e.g. the people who like flymake would argue that flycheck might be "redundant", etc). To me - it's fine to try to solve the same problem in multiple ways if there's no clearly superior way of doing something. I guess a package is never really obsolete until no one uses it and maintains it. 

In general I agree that some quality criteria have to be met for a package to be included on NGE, I just hope that those criteria are going to be of the objective kind. 

On Fri, Jan 7, 2022, at 9:55 AM, Stefan Kangas wrote:
> "Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev> writes:
> 
> > I'm also curious what "redundant package" even means in this
> > context. There are always many ways to achieve something and usually
> > there's no clear way to decide if some approach is much better than
> > the alternatives. Given how early we are with NonGNU ELPA I think that
> > concerns about "obsolete" and "redundant" packages are quite overdone.
> 
> I don't think it's time to start pruning NGE, indeed, but we could avoid
> adding packages that are on MELPA that are already obviously
> obsolete/superseded.
> 
> For example, I use the software "anki" quite a lot, and there are four
> different packages for it.  I have tried all of them, and frankly
> speaking only one of those packages is relevant.  Therefore, I would
> advise against adding the others; as Philip points out, this is more
> likely to waste users time than be very helpful.
> 
>