Sandro Tosi wrote: > On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56, Stefano Zacchiroli<z...@debian.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: >>> This proposal received a lot of interest back then, but in the end >>> went nowhere. I think we should resurrect it and put into use at >>> least some of its parts. In particular, the part about "expiration >>> of DD rights" received only minor criticisms; criticisms which I've >>> tried to address. >> Here is a status update. >> >> My reading of the discussion which followed the initial proposal is >> that we have consensus on the general idea; yet, there are small >> divergences on some details (e.g., 1 year vs 2 year, when/if >> notifying, ...). > > some questions I still see without a clear answer: > > - who will decide the above (and below) details? are they left to the > implementors? I believe the proposal should contains some sort of > "lower limits" (what if they decide 1 month of inactivity is enough? > ok it's purely hypotetical, but it still applies).
DAM. Well, when DAM would decide too restrictive, one could try to convince them to do otherwise or even overrule them. > - what's your ETA for this proposal to be operative? That's up to DAM. > - what about non-DDs that are currently tracked in MIA database, along with > DDs? Nothing changes regarding MIA. > - what will happen to the packages of DDs deactivated by this proposal? Like with the WAT runs, there will very probably be a feedback to the MIA Team. > - will the MIA team be dismantled? who's in charge of this? will you > take care of removing all the traces of MIA team from Debian > documentations (like wiki, devref, etc) or from wherever is > referenced? (of course, if we decide to remove it and not "archive") > or edit them, where needed? You are mixing WAT and MIA apparently. The current proposal may replace the DAM's WAT runs AFAICS, it does *not* affect MIA except from the feedback generated after deactivation of DDs. > - what to do about the current (yet unanswered) queries we've > received? should we reply "please wait for <this> to be approved"? > should we fulfill? when should we stop operations? (I'm personally not > that motivated to work on something that's dying.) There is no reason at all to change processing. >> Since, AFAIR, DAM has not commented in the thread, in the last days I >> contacted a DAM representative (Joerg Jaspert) in private to seek >> comments on the idea. The bottom line is that DAM is fine with the >> proposed changes and is willing to replace (manual) WAT runs [2] with >> an automatic mechanism like the one we discussed. I also pinged DSA, >> which reasonably considers this discussion none of its business and >> will happily implement whatever the project and DAM decide on the >> matter. > > I do believe it would have been nice if you contacted (not saying > discuss with) the MIA team about this proposal (since the team main > activities are under discussion here), either before or after your > made it public. You seem to misunderstand the proposal AFAICS. The MIA Team would still be operative for non DDs in general and for DDs in a proactive way (aka during the inactivity period). Cheers Luk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org