Hi,
For years, the DAM and NEW queues have been the major source of
frustration in the Debian community. Several attempts have been made to
improve the situation, but the problems have never been really solved so
far. And the queues are again in a bad state.
First, DAM: there are 19 prospective
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
We should seek processes that scale. For example:
=20
- the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates, to verif=
y
that the applicant has some knowledge about different aspects of
On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
are DM already.
Is that really problem? We need people who take the right decisions (and
that includes
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
are DM already.
Is that really problem? We need people who take the right
Bernd Zeimetz schrieb am Dienstag, dem 23. Juni 2009:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
are DM already.
Is
On 23/06/09 at 12:55 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
are DM already.
Is that
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
For years, the DAM and NEW queues have been the major source of
frustration in the Debian community.
really? *the* major source of frustration? really?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On 2009-06-23, Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
For years, the DAM and NEW queues have been the major source of
frustration in the Debian community.
really? *the* major source of frustration? really?
at least for
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
We need to compromise on the level of quality we expect from our
prospective DDs and new packages.
I don't accept this premise.
We should seek processes that scale. For example:
This is true - but does not *at all* imply
Lucas Nussbaum lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net wrote:
Is that really problem? We need people who take the right decisions (and
that includes asking questions when they don't know or are not sure
about something), not people who can repeat all our documentation from
memory.
And then we get what
On 2009-06-23, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
We should seek processes that scale. For example:
This is true - but does not *at all* imply compromising on quality.
full ack.
I would actually prefer a way where we can
On 23/06/09 at 12:04 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
We need to compromise on the level of quality we expect from our
prospective DDs and new packages.
I don't accept this premise.
We should seek processes that scale. For
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
- the NEW queue could also be based on peer-review: one could ask one
or two another DDs to certify that the package is OK (licensing-wise)
to be uploaded to unstable. Then ftpmasters would just be responsible
for
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Some of them have been FD-approved a very, very long time ago:
Alexander Gerasiov has been FD-approved on 2009-01-10, and Asheesh
Loria on 2008-12-22 (but apparently, because of an unanswered RC
bug, DAM postponed approving him a
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 12:55 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
are DM
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
just in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
What would we be missing that way?
What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with the comment
I'm not entirely
Peter Palfrader wrote:
That being said, having to be a DM for some time before tying up the
resources for the whole NM process does sound like a good idea.
Definitely.
But first I'd like to see DM integrated more into the NM page and the keyring
being maintained by FD and without jetring...
Julien BLACHE wrote:
That said, NM is a pain for the applicants *and* the AMs from what
I've witnessed recently. There's certainly room for improvements in
the process, but it doesn't look like FD is open to much changes in
the way NM works today (again, from what I've witnessed recently).
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
- the NEW queue could also be based on peer-review: one could ask one
or two another DDs to certify that the package is OK (licensing-wise)
to be uploaded to unstable. Then ftpmasters would just be
On 23/06/09 at 14:29 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
just in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
What would we be missing that way?
What you miss is that I move all problematic
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
just in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
What would we be missing that way?
What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with the
On 23/06/09 at 14:37 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
- the NEW queue could also be based on peer-review: one could ask one
or two another DDs to certify that the package is OK (licensing-wise)
to be
[Lucas Nussbaum, 2009-06-23]
On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
are DM already.
Is that really problem? We need people who take the
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
the comment I'm not entirely happy, but its your job to decide...
OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
decision is taken. Either
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 14:29 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
just in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
What would we be missing that way?
What you miss is that I move
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
the comment I'm not entirely happy, but its your job to decide...
OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify
On 23/06/09 at 14:34 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Julien BLACHE wrote:
That said, NM is a pain for the applicants *and* the AMs from what
I've witnessed recently. There's certainly room for improvements in
the process, but it doesn't look like FD is open to much changes in
the way NM
On Tue Jun 23 11:30, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
- the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates, to verify
that the applicant has some knowledge about different aspects of Debian
packaging. Then the AM would ask
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
From an NM point of view, my feeling is:
I hope the Keyring Maintainers and the DSA don't feel like reviewing
everything
*again* to add my key to the keyring and to give me access to the developer
machines
Speaking with my DSA hat on,
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
- the NEW queue could also be based on peer-review: one could ask one
or two another DDs to certify that the package is OK (licensing-wise)
to be uploaded to unstable. Then
Peter Palfrader wrote:
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
the comment I'm not entirely happy, but its your job to decide...
OK, then what I'm
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM.
It's DAM. DAM has always been the position that decides who is a DD and
who isn't. The whole FD/NM thing is
On 23/06/09 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM.
It's DAM. DAM has always been the position that decides
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM.
It's DAM. DAM has always been the
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Hi,
For years, the DAM and NEW queues have been the major source of
frustration in the Debian community. Several attempts have been made to
improve the situation, but the problems have never been really solved so
far. And the
On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
NM process:
- the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates,
...
This *might* work if we solve what in my opinion is the main problem here:
DDs
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
NM process:
- the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates,
...
This *might* work if we solve what in my opinion is the main problem
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 16:45:10 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I've been advocating people too early (i.e, I've advocated people so
that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
advocated them for DM). The reason is that the unassigned applicants
list is huge, so, when
Bernd Zeimetz dijo [Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:55:15PM +0200]:
Is that really problem? We need people who take the right decisions (and
that includes asking questions when they don't know or are not sure
about something), not people who can repeat all our documentation from
memory.
80% or
Bernd Zeimetz dijo [Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:54:17PM +0200]:
If there are too many emails, maybe you should reduce the number of
emails by reducing the number of questions asked?
No.
The number of emails rises only if candidates don't answer in a useful way and
the AM needs to ask back.
On 23/06/09 at 16:09 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
And we already have DM to avoid the frustration to not being able to upload
trivial packaging changes.
Now DM has been here
On 23/06/09 at 17:10 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I've been advocating people too early (i.e, I've advocated people so
that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
advocated them for DM). The reason is that
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort dijo [Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:43:55PM +0200]:
I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
just in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
What would we be missing that way?
What you miss is that I move all problematic
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Chris Lamb benefited from a lot of factors. [...]
That sounds a lot like my own NM process. I guess what this proves is that
really active people who already have been involved with the problem for
a decent time and already have shown both their
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution here
is a package split, but I often end up working around it in other
ways, just because of NEW.
In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in
rare situations.
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Your concept fails - usually the problematic issues are not even
mentioned in debian/copyright. And if somebody is able to download
packages from the NEW queue Debian is distributing them.
This could be worked around by just showing the diff.gz and a
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
just in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
What would we be missing that way?
What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with the comment
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Chris Lamb benefited from a lot of factors. He waiting a long time
before applying, so he couldn't have been more ready to be a DD. He was
assigned an AM after only a month of waiting, his AM was very active
at the time and prioritized his NM process quite high, so he
could
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I've been advocating people too early (i.e, I've advocated people so
that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
advocated them for DM). The reason is that the unassigned applicants
list is huge, so, when considering whether you should advocate
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:47:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Has Debian even ever received a cease and desist letter from a IP
lawyer? Under which circumstances? I am bit tired of lawyers being
mentioned each time the NEW problems are discussed, while it seems,
based on history, that
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:56:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution here
is a package split, but I often end up working around it in other
ways, just because of NEW.
In my experience,
Russ Allbery wrote:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution here
is a package split, but I often end up working around it in other
ways, just because of NEW.
In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org (23/06/2009):
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution
here is a package split, but I often end up working around it in
other ways, just because of NEW.
In my experience, package splits go through
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
I've been advocating people too early (i.e, I've advocated people so
that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
advocated them for DM). The reason is that the unassigned applicants
list is huge, so, when considering
On 23/06/09 at 22:35 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
I've been advocating people too early (i.e, I've advocated people so
that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
advocated them for DM). The reason is that the unassigned
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:13:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
But all of that said, it still needs trusted people to review the
packages, which is where we've traditionally started to have scaling
problems.
This is where a public peer-review has an advantage: when submitting and
Michael Banck mba...@debian.org writes:
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:56:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
Sune Vuorela nos...@vuorela.dk writes:
sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution here
is a package split, but I often end up working around it in other
ways, just
57 matches
Mail list logo
