My account is indeed inactive, you can remove it.
Joerg Jaspert a écrit :
Introduction
We are currently reviewing the debian.org account database and
checking a list of developer accounts that *appear* to be inactive. The
purpose of this review is simply to minimise the number
I read the mail but I'm not active
Henri
begin:vcard
fn:Henri Auge
n:Auge;Henri
org;quoted-printable:Lyc=C3=A9e G Crampe Aire/Adour
adr;dom:;;;Aire sur Adour;;40800
email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
title:enseignant STS IRIS
version:2.1
end:vcard
On Wed, May 23, 2007 at 11:09:53AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Hi DAMs,
I'm wondering what actually happened with this, so flow of questions
follows :)
Hi DAMs, ping again on this.
Can we have some numbers about at least how many mails have been sent in
the first WaT run, if any? Also
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
To reduce the security risk an unused open account has, and also to get
the number of Developers to reflect the reality, we, the Debian Account
Managers, decided to do regular WaT[2] runs.
Selection of the people included in
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:28:06 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can see you have never actually packaged a .deb without
using dpkg and debhelper and debian specific programs. When I did
this on a red hat box, I found the activity a great deal of fun, as
well as being
Hi,
I think this message is likely to lead to a mostly useless
flurry of messages, but then we have not had a mostly useless heated
discussion on this topic in a few months.
On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 13:18:25 +0100, Marc Haber
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 12:28:06 -0600,
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:22:08 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
But Manoj says the 'maintainer ping' was tried and was
not liked. So I guess some other method need to be found.
Just out of curiosity: What exactly was this maintainer ping and
why was it disliked?
gregor
--
.''`.
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:10:44 +0100, gregor herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:22:08 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
But Manoj says the 'maintainer ping' was tried and was not
liked. So I guess some other method need to be found.
Just out of curiosity: What exactly was this
On Fri, Feb 16, 2007 at 11:41:23AM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 14:10:44 +0100, gregor herrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:22:08 -0500, Kevin Mark wrote:
But Manoj says the 'maintainer ping' was tried and was not
liked. So I guess some other
On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 22:38:35 +0100, Marc Haber [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:35:27 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, getting ones status reverted is an inconvenience, but
surely an active DD should not be afraid of passing something we
ask of every
Le jeudi 15 février 2007 à 11:01 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
So what is your oh-so-elegant solution to the MIA account
problem? Or do you just specialize in bad-mouthing any solution
other people come up with? I have looked at the last doze or so posts
you've made to the
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So what is your oh-so-elegant solution to the MIA account problem?
Humans problems have no technical solution.
--
·''`. If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution
: :' :-- Emma Goldman
`. `'
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:11:30 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Le jeudi 15 février 2007 à 11:01 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
So what is your oh-so-elegant solution to the MIA account problem?
Or do you just specialize in bad-mouthing any solution other people
come up with?
Le jeudi 15 février 2007 à 11:50 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:11:30 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
It's because he didn't pass NM with you as AM. By repackaging stuff
without debhelper, he would have learned how fun Debian can be.
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:36:33 +0100, Amaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So what is your oh-so-elegant solution to the MIA account problem?
Humans problems have no technical solution.
While that is true, I don't think it is totally applicable
here. The problem we
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 19:12:05 +0100, Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Le jeudi 15 février 2007 à 11:50 -0600, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 18:11:30 +0100, Josselin Mouette
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It's because he didn't pass NM with you as AM. By repackaging
On Thu, Feb 15, 2007 at 06:36:33PM +0100, Amaya wrote:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
So what is your oh-so-elegant solution to the MIA account problem?
Humans problems have no technical solution.
As I understand it, the 'MIA account problem' is not about finding a
solution to the 'humans
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:35:27 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I mean, getting ones
status reverted is an inconvenience, but surely an active DD should
not be afraid of passing something we ask of every new developer?
I would surely love to be required to do pointless exercises
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:57:12 -0600, Manoj Srivastava
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I applaud the effort by the DAM's to gather the required
information on their own, taking the burden of writing whatever code
that needs be written, as opposed to asking the MIA folks to add
code/process over
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 05:22:47PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:33:40 +0100, Amaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Are you familiar with the MIA Team work? How is this work
insufficient that this extra check needs to be implemented? Have you
tought of a way to integrate
On Monday 12 February 2007 01:58:19 Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Mike Hommey wrote:
A probable reason is that the NM process is getting tougher and/or that
some developpers didn't even pass an NM process...
While at the moment that I have just passed TasksSkills
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
a DD not interested in
Debian politics has no need to be a DD. If it's just a matter of
technical work then sponsorship would be enough.
Do I understand you right, that, according to your opinion, people like
me should ask the DAM to remove their key?
I'm not saying
Hi mate
As far as I can see right now there are plenty of people listed
there with no packages and they can be the targets for the first
run.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/org/qa.debian.org/mia$ ./mia-todo needs-wat
0 maintainers in possible need of needs-wat
Try it again please, the mia db was kind
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:04:24AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
a DD not interested in Debian politics has no need to be a DD. If
it's just a matter of technical work then sponsorship would be
enough.
Do I understand you right, that, according to your opinion, people like
me should ask the
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Steffen Moeller wrote:
While at the moment that I have just passed TasksSkills II, I consider this
to be possible but rather unlikely szenario. However, I presume that in about
20-30 years from now when I got older this may well be true. What do we have
then - quantum
On Monday 12 February 2007 13:35:21 you wrote:
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007, Steffen Moeller wrote:
While at the moment that I have just passed TasksSkills II, I consider
this to be possible but rather unlikely szenario. However, I presume that
in about 20-30 years from now when I got older this may
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'm sorry, but I don't know how do you relate with my analysis. Do you
usually vote for the DPL elections or GRs? If not then yes, I feel you
don't need a key (but see below). Of course this do not imply you should
ask for the removal: there's a deficiency in our
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 10:59:53PM -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On dim, 2007-02-11 at 15:35 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
an active DD should
not be afraid of passing something we ask of every new developer?
On dim,
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 11:04:24AM +0100, Daniel Baumann wrote:
a DD not interested in Debian politics has no need to be a DD. If
it's just a matter of technical work then sponsorship would be
enough.
Do I understand you right, that, according to your opinion,
On Monday 12 February 2007 16:31, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
While I think it's a good idea to consider whether people voted or did
not vote for the DPL election a data point for MIA-ness, I feel that
the lack of producing a vote should not be taken as inactivity.
I agree. And the converse is also
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:45:53 +0100, Steffen Moeller
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Our society should be aware that people age. And it should find a
way to live with the elderly, not expell them. This is why I
strongly object the technically well-meant following paragraph:
If this is
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:40:31PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:54:56 -0600, Jon Marler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have a question ... How do I keep my Debian maintainer status if I
miss the vote? Is there a website I can log in to raise my
On Sun, 2007-02-11 at 09:22 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 09:40:31PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:54:56 -0600, Jon Marler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have a question ... How do I keep my Debian maintainer status if I
On Saturday 10 February 2007 01:34, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Selection of the people included in those runs will be done in a way
that we avoid sending out such mails to active people. As a good start
we will take the upcoming DPL vote as an input source, everyone who doesn't
vote this year will
On 10927 March 1977, Bart Martens wrote:
Three week vacation periods are not uncommon.
Of course, and I'm sure everyone knows that. When I read the
announcement again, then I see no reason to panic. :)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/02/msg8.html
An example, how I
On 11/02/07 at 10:29 +, Mark Purcell wrote:
Whilst you might be able to vote without expressing an opinion,
we already have a documented MIA process.
http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference/ch-beyond-pkging.en.html#s-mia-qa
I don't think using the single criteria such as DPL
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:19:34PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 11/02/07 at 10:29 +, Mark Purcell wrote:
Whilst you might be able to vote without expressing an opinion,
we already have a documented MIA process.
Jon Marler wrote:
I have a question ... How do I keep my Debian maintainer status if I
miss the vote?
A more relevant case are probably people, who don't care about the
annual time-drain aka DPL election.
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 12:19:34PM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I totally agree. If I were forced to reduce my involvement in Debian, I
would probably start by losing interest in politics, since I could
easily trust other, better-informed DD, to make better choices than I
would do. That
On 10927 March 1977, Mark Purcell wrote:
On Saturday 10 February 2007 01:34, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Selection of the people included in those runs will be done in a way
that we avoid sending out such mails to active people. As a good start
we will take the upcoming DPL vote as an input source,
On Sunday 11 February 2007 03:57, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
- miss the WaT mail. Even if you are on vacation for a long time, I
guess it wont be 3 weeks (vote) plus one or two months (WaT mail
timeout), and dont you read your backlog when you come back?
What about if the WaT mail is
Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 10927 March 1977, Mark Purcell wrote:
On Saturday 10 February 2007 01:34, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Selection of the people included in those runs will be done in a way
that we avoid sending out such mails to active
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 12:12:54 -0700, Wesley J Landaker [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On Sunday 11 February 2007 03:57, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
- miss the WaT mail. Even if you are on vacation for a long time, I
guess it wont be 3 weeks (vote) plus one or two months (WaT mail
timeout), and dont you
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:42:47 -0500, Joe Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would hope that there would be a grace period after deactivation,
I suggest you read the original mail before participating in
the discussion.
where a person who misses the WaT mail, and then later has his/her
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:35:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 15:42:47 -0500, Joe Smith
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I would hope that there would be a grace period after deactivation,
I suggest you read the original mail before
Hi, there
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
To reduce the security risk an unused open account has, and also to
get the number of Developers to reflect the reality, we, the Debian
Account Managers, decided to do regular WaT[2] runs.
Are you familiar with the MIA Team work? How is this work insufficient
On dim, 2007-02-11 at 15:35 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
an active DD should
not be afraid of passing something we ask of every new developer?
On dim, 2007-02-11 at 22:49 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
A probable reason is that the NM process is getting tougher and/or that
some developpers
On Sunday 11 February 2007 14:22, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
I don't think using the single criteria such as DPL voting is a good,
approach.
Now, explain where the problem in my approach is? The worst case that
can happen to someone who does not vote is that he replies to one
mail. Its not as if
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:33:40 +0100, Amaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Hi, there
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
To reduce the security risk an unused open account has, and also to
get the number of Developers to reflect the reality, we, the Debian
Account Managers, decided to do regular WaT[2] runs.
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:39:46 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On dim, 2007-02-11 at 15:35 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
an active DD should not be afraid of passing something we ask of
every new developer?
On dim, 2007-02-11 at 22:49 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote: A probable
On dim, 2007-02-11 at 17:18 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
A reduced NM process should be less time consuming than the
full one, no?
Well, it depends on the steps which are removed from the NM process, and
how this reduced process is made. I guess it should be less time
consuming, but I can
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think the difference is that the MIA process is too
conservative,
It starts off being polite, indeed. And patient. You never know the
reason why a person is not so active anymore. Tbm gave a talk about how
it is done and why it is done like that in Oslo, 2003
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:37:33 +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
On dim, 2007-02-11 at 17:18 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
A reduced NM process should be less time consuming than the full
one, no?
Well, it depends on the steps which are removed from the NM process,
and how
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Mike Hommey wrote:
A probable reason is that the NM process is getting tougher and/or that
some developpers didn't even pass an NM process...
Then we are better off without them. I can understandy anyone trying to
avoid NM in the grounds that it is a hassle (as in they'd
On Sun, 11 Feb 2007, Yves-Alexis Perez wrote:
On dim, 2007-02-11 at 15:35 -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
an active DD should
not be afraid of passing something we ask of every new developer?
On dim, 2007-02-11 at 22:49 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
A probable reason is that the NM process is
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 00:43:27 +0100, Amaya [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
I think the difference is that the MIA process is too conservative,
It starts off being polite, indeed. And patient. You never know the
reason why a person is not so active anymore. Tbm gave a talk
On 10928 March 1977, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, it does. They need to fix their packages, or they get orphaned.
When no packages are left, we talk to DAM.
No. You(Mia) didnt (in the past).
How many other MIA people are undiscovered by our current process?
I'm sure there are plenty. And
On Sun, Feb 11, 2007 at 03:35:27PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
... I mean, getting ones
status reverted is an inconvenience, but surely an active DD should
not be afraid of passing something we ask of every new developer?
IIUC if A is the number of people expelled from Debian and if B is
Hi mates
This is the part I'm unsure about. I think, as che recently
mentioned, he has been missing for years. His packages were
properly orphaned, but the account cleanup never happened.
I am given the impression that the primary focus of the MIA
process is taking care
On dim, 2007-02-11 at 22:59 -0200, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
More than difficulty, I think *time* is the problem.
Agreed, but anyone who cannot take the time to vote once an year
really
should be asking for his account to be locked for a while (i.e. a
vacation)
until he has more
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:47:48AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Yeah, you're perfectly right. That's the best advice one could give to
not so active DD who doesn't want to lose much time («lose the time to
vote so you don't lose the time in NM»). But as someone said, some
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 07:47:48AM +0100, Yves-Alexis Perez [EMAIL
PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, you're perfectly right. That's the best advice one could give to
not so active DD who doesn't want to lose much time («lose the time to
vote so you don't lose the time in NM»).
On lun, 2007-02-12 at 08:05 +0100, Mike Hommey wrote:
The difference between a DD and a non-DD is mainly about voting, so if
a
DD doesn't have interest in politics, he could just do like a lot of
non-DD people: have a sponsor.
When dealing with a large set of packages (read Xfce), it's
On Mon, Feb 12, 2007 at 02:53:25PM +1100, Steffen Joeris wrote:
Why not just logging in to merkel and using mia-todo needs-wat ?
As far as I can see right now there are plenty of people listed
there with no packages and they can be the targets for the first
run.
[EMAIL
On 2007-02-10 Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as Debian gets more and more accounts it is only natural that we have
more and more unused accounts. People get MIA, find different interests
or simply lost interest in Debian but did not follow the normal
procedure of retiring.[1]
To
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi
as Debian gets more and more accounts it is only natural that we have
more and more unused accounts. People get MIA, find different interests
or simply lost interest in Debian but did not follow the normal
procedure of
Hi,
On Sat Feb 10, 2007 at 11:57:14 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
On Sat, Feb 10, 2007 at 02:34:39AM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
Hi
as Debian gets more and more accounts it is only natural that we have
more and more unused accounts. People get MIA, find different interests
or simply
I have a question ... How do I keep my Debian maintainer status if I
miss the vote? Is there a website I can log in to raise my hand and
keep from being booted out?
Is there somewhere this is being debated where I can join the debate?
I frequently respond to bug reports, upload new releases,
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 18:54:56 -0600, Jon Marler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have a question ... How do I keep my Debian maintainer status if I
miss the vote? Is there a website I can log in to raise my hand
and keep from being booted out?
While this is a legitimate question, but how
Hi Joerg,
I know I've gone MIA for quite a long time (graduated from university
and got a full-time job). I don't know if I've gotten the WaT email
yet, but I'd be glad to keep my email forwarding as an emeritus
account.
Anyway, thanks for taking the time to clean up all the accounts, and
my
70 matches
Mail list logo
