Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 03:08:11AM +0200, Richard Braakman wrote: Remember that this process has to scale to dozens of new packages per day. It should be optimized for the common case. Know your tools. -- Rico -mc- Gloeckner | 1024D/61F05B8C | jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ukeer.de |RICO-RIPE | sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] == mv ~/.signature http://www.ukeer.de/signature.html ==
Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:16:23AM +, Mark Brown wrote: On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:18:51AM +0100, Marc Haber wrote: Even if this is not a personal issue of Mr. Troup towards me, having ftpmaster behave like A today and like B tomorrow is a bad thing. If I There's more than one person behind ftpmaster. Obviously this is one more case of lack of communication within the Debian Project. -- Rico -mc- Gloeckner | 1024D/61F05B8C | jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ukeer.de |RICO-RIPE | sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] == mv ~/.signature http://www.ukeer.de/signature.html ==
Re: ftpmaster accepts packages that have been rejected a few days ago
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 08:29:44PM +, Colin Watson wrote: James' rejection message apparently *explicitly said* that another ftpmaster might have a different opinion. I think this is a feature. It certainly is not. Having guides on how decisions are made are raising transparency. Transparency will make the Maintainers be more comfortable wether something is worth to be done. Feeling comfortable raises motivation and slows down Burn-out effects. Decisions should not be made out of the stomach of each individual ftpmaster. QA can only be done if decisions are made out of reasons, and even if it takes that all ftpmasters talk to each other when they are in doubt. An decision as ftpmaster shouldnt be done as James Troup or as Daniel Silverstone - it should be made as the role ftpmaster. Saying that another ftpmaster might think different is proof enough of a doubt; it would be better to say: your package has to wait, i will clear up with the group of ftpmasters wether this package is acceptable for debian. -- Rico -mc- Gloeckner | 1024D/61F05B8C | jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ukeer.de |RICO-RIPE | sip:[EMAIL PROTECTED] == mv ~/.signature http://www.ukeer.de/signature.html ==
Re: Bug#207300: tmda: Challenge-response is fundamentally broken
On Wed, Aug 27, 2003 at 05:40:46PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: If possible, perhaps you could consider whitelisting common debian.org address by default? [Things like [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], etc.] And would probably defeat the purpose since spammers would know which adresses they have to spoof into the From: Header. Furthermore, if spammers got that, it might happen that they use debian.org adresses as sensible default for From: Adresses which will raise the amount of Bounces to debian.org. That sounds like a great way for the Project to shoot itself into the feet. -- | Rico -mc- Gloeckner | mv ~/.signature `finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Encrypted Mails preferred: 1024D/61F05B8C | | 3D67 D42F 2D50 4B68 1D62 E999 EFCB CDFF 61F0 5B8C |
Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003
On Wed, Jul 23, 2003 at 12:36:35PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: While I have my gripes with the DAM process, I don't blame the holder(s) of that position for some developers in the past having proven untrustworthy. The DAM should not be embarrassed by having let in someone who also fooled everyone else. The DAMs' job is to manage accounts, not gaze into people's souls. He, and everyone else, should however raise his (their) voice if they see an applicant not fitting into Debian or they think that someone his untrustworthy. *If* there is doubt, those doubts should be communicated to atleast the AM, so he can take action; be it that they ask the community how they feel, be it that they communicate the reasons further to the applicant, be it another action which i currently do not think of. Its no solution if the DAM doesnt communicate at all or only when he gets asked. IMHO atleast the communication between DAM and AMs should be working good, and from atleast one voice i heard (i dont remember if it was in the threads or on IRC) this is not the case. I do not feel its even required to always post exact reasons, some things shouldnt be made too public; instead i feel that there should be communicated... well, lets call it heartbeats: Hey, i did not forget you. Again, this mustnt be necessarily communicated directly to the applicant, but atleast to the AM, who can further communicate it (if necessary, in complete different detail-levels) to the applicant. -- | Rico -mc- Gloeckner | mv ~/.signature `finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] | | Encrypted Mails preferred: 1024D/61F05B8C | | 3D67 D42F 2D50 4B68 1D62 E999 EFCB CDFF 61F0 5B8C |
