Re: NM non-process
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes: Matt Zimmerman said: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and should not be ignored. Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free software, which we work hard to promote. This is a danger because it's a stupid waste of effort. The Debian2 project would have exactly the same goals, and presumably most of the same software and processes, as Debian, except that it would be better about communicating: accepting or rejecting applicants in a timely manner, etc. Should we *have* to fork for *that*? The XFree86 people didn't want to have to fork for similar non-technical social issues, although forking was certainly considered. GCC had an egcs fork for similar social reasons, and eventually it 'took over' the main GCC development line, which ended up pleasing everyone. It seems better all around to just fix the breakage with the Debian processes, *if* possible. It would also show that people have lost faith that they can change Debians constitution, guidelines and operation to its members likes. Any subgroup in Debian should have enough faith to at least try to change Debian to head in a better direction. If thats lost its a very very sad thing. MfG Goswin
Re: NM non-process
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 22:20]: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be written down publically in the appropriate place. I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then the fact that this information is not published on the website does not indicate that the process is broken. According to the mails I get from more than one applicant they're not always informed to the causes of the delays. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:14:25PM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: The only package that I may not be qualified for is Jikes. And that's because I don't know the internals of JVM and Java opcode... or *all* the internals of Jikes... I'm thinking of filling a RFA: on jikes. But it is still better than it being O: like it was for some time before I picked it up. IME (as the sponsor) you're doing pretty well with jikes, given the circumstances. The only problem there is that I occasionally need to be nudged a couple of times about uploads. :/ -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NM non-process
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:34:53 +0100 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] While I'm at it, a quick and possibly irrelevant bit of stats-pr0n I just did (note that it counts resolved bugs too): http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgindex.cgi?indexon=tag What does mean patch has 3339 bugs? 3339 bugs tag patch not yet resolved? to be upload? or when you say it counts resolved bugs means some of them have been resolved and upload and other not? -- Arnaud Vandyck http://alioth.debian.org/users/arnaud-guest/ http://alioth.debian.org/developer/diary.php?diary_user=2781 pgphCLLfVTdb3.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NM non-process
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 22:20]: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be written down publically in the appropriate place. I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then the fact that this information is not published on the website does not indicate that the process is broken. According to the mails I get from more than one applicant they're not always informed to the causes of the delays. Is there ever any mail from DAM? I never got any mail from the DAM, not even when my first AM went MIA and forgot to send some of my application data (mainly his approval of me) to the DAM. I only learned about the problem when suddenly a new AM mailed me. MfG Goswin
Re: NM non-process
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:51:26AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:34:53 +0100 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I'm at it, a quick and possibly irrelevant bit of stats-pr0n I just did (note that it counts resolved bugs too): http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgindex.cgi?indexon=tag What does mean patch has 3339 bugs? 3339 bugs are either open or closed-but-not-yet-archived. Bugs are archived after 28 days of being closed with no activity. This is the same as what you get on normal lists of bugs per package, etc. Yes, this should probably be made clearer, but hey. -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NM non-process
On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 11:04:16 +0100 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:51:26AM +0200, Arnaud Vandyck wrote: On Thu, 7 Aug 2003 00:34:53 +0100 Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While I'm at it, a quick and possibly irrelevant bit of stats-pr0n I just did (note that it counts resolved bugs too): http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgindex.cgi?indexon=tag What does mean patch has 3339 bugs? 3339 bugs are either open or closed-but-not-yet-archived. OK Bugs are archived after 28 days of being closed with no activity. This is the same as what you get on normal lists of bugs per package, etc. Well, I knew that, it's in the footpage of every bugs! ;) Yes, this should probably be made clearer, but hey. Just to be sure... -- Arnaud Vandyck http://alioth.debian.org/users/arnaud-guest/ http://alioth.debian.org/developer/diary.php?diary_user=2781 pgpVuEB9IyKMX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a breakdown in the communication process. Communication with whom? I don't think that anyone besides the applicant himself needs to be informed. Generally they are not, maybe a direct mail to DAM might help, though. If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be written down publically in the appropriate place. I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then the fact that this information is not published on the website does not indicate that the process is broken. Generally the applicant does not know why. Again, a mail to DAM might bring some light. Have not tried myself, since i met him IRL during Debconf3. data -- Jesus Climent | Unix SysAdm | Helsinki, Finland | pumuki.hispalinux.es GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69 -- Registered Linux user #66350 proudly using Debian Sid Linux 2.4.21 The fool looks at a finger that points at the sky. --The Sacré-Coeur Boy (Amelie)
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: When you have maintain a package, shouldn't you be able to fix it yourself? IMHO, people should not package or take over a package that they do not understand how it works. For example, a kernel maintainer I think you're dreaming. For most packages this level of familiarity isn't necessary. I confess that I am only familiar in any detail with the source to a small subset of my packages. (That doesn't mean I can't fix some upstream bugs if upstream is awol of course.) If this makes me a bad maintainer please nominate the packages you want to adopt. Hamish -- Hamish Moffatt VK3SB [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:56:08PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: Heh :) If I hadn't responded to it manually, it would have gotten ignored as spam (nobody cared enough to write a nice formail -r message because it happens rarely enough and the spambounces would waste us more resources). [policy of d-d-a] Yes, I can see the problem. However, it would have helped me much if this policy would have been clearly stated at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/ (should I open a bug, or can it be fixed without?). Please file a minor bug on listarchives, I'll get to it by tonight. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:54:43PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:41:37PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: the person who's in charge of the keyring has to be as paranoid as James. The other person in the project that comes to mind is Manoj. And that's it. I wouldn't trust Martin with such a responsability, and I don't care how many votes he got, trust is not something you win by election. Sorry but this argument sounds like utter bullshit to me. How do we know James is keeping people out of the keyring in order to prevent them from uploading rogue packages? Is this more of your usual attempt at humor? Because, as usual, I'm not laughing. Of course James can't prevent people from uploading rogue packages (even if peole could argue he's trying to, I mean, he's DAM _and_ keymaster _and_ ftpmaster), but I didn't say that, did I? I have memory of a couple of cases when James has refused to add (or update) a key to the keyring for reasons which people have gone on record as calling silly or paranoic. Trivialities such as people refusing to disclose their real names jump to mind. Or people coming up with inventive protocols for identifying persons a couple of thousand kilometers away... If you find joy in digging the mail archives, be my guest. If you don't like the fact that I openly say I wouldn't trust Martin at that position, tough. That doesn't justify your feeble attempt to derail the discussion. What proof do we have that methods employed by him will actually have any bearing whatsoever on whether someone does something evil? And here I have to wonder what exactly you mean by methods. I can't say that my relation with James is or has ever been rosy, I have disagreed more than once with him, but between being lax in order to keep everyone happy, and erring on the side of caution, I prefer the person in his to position to do the later, and he incidentally does. I fail to see how holding gobs of people indefinitely can be singlehandedly excused with paranoia without any real evidence to even support the claim. It seems like blatant handwaving to me. Take that as you will. Go look up handwaving in the dictionary. Now look at what you wrote. -- Marcelo
Re: NM non-process
Marcelo Magallon said: You mean you actually think James can even consider the possibility of handing the management of the keyring over? Well, he should. He'll have to someday, such as when he dies. (Unless he is actually immortal, or more likely if Debian is utterly destroyed first.) According to the Debian Constitution, he only has mastery over the keyring because he's a Delegate appointed by the DPL. You seem to be saying that he should treat it as his personal property, or perhaps a God-given right. That's just odd. It can't be what you meant, can it? :-) Of course he has a right (and duty) to be concerned about who manages the keyring, and to give his opinion about that to the DPL (even if his opinion is that he is the only one who can be trusted), but that's not what you said. -- Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: NM non-process
Andreas Barth said: Yes, I can see the problem. However, it would have helped me much if this policy would have been clearly stated at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/ (should I open a bug, or can it be fixed without?). The rate of things getting fixed without having bugs reported seems even lower than the rate of reported bugs getting fixed, so I'd open a bug. This is simply my gut feeling, not a statistical analysis. -- Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: NM non-process
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 05:07:11PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: According to the Debian Constitution, he only has mastery over the keyring because he's a Delegate appointed by the DPL. Yeah, like that's ever mattered. I can't actually remember someone saying for this period of time James Troup is going to be in charge of this or that position. When the task needed to be done, before the constitution and all that, James was there and did it. Perserving the status quo? No, I don't agree with that. But according to our constitution that doesn't matter much, does it? In fact, what matters more directly is what the DPL thinks. And the current DPL stated his opinion on the matter rather succinctly not even a month ago. No matter what the constitution says, we are in general happy with people stepping forward, rolling up their sleeves and working. In this particular case, and going back to the DAM topic, you could say that James is _not_ working, since there's no public record of that work, or better said, the public records suggest that the work is not being done (new maintainers appear only sporadically and full blown rejections just don't happen). Fine. Who do you want in that position then? Because if this discussion is ever going to end for any significant ammount of time, you have two basic options: you force James to do DAM work or you replace him. The first one is never going to work. Of course he has a right (and duty) to be concerned about who manages the keyring, and to give his opinion about that to the DPL (even if his opinion is that he is the only one who can be trusted), but that's not what you said. No, that's not what I said, but I can agree with that. Marcelo
Re: NM non-process
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Trivialities such as people refusing to disclose their real names jump to mind. This strikes me as one of the *best* reasons to deny someone. If someone is unwilling even to trust Debian with their real name, then why should Debian (and Debian's users) trust them? --Adam -- Adam McKenna [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NM non-process
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: the person who's in charge of the keyring has to be as paranoid as James. The other person in the project that comes to mind is Manoj. And that's it. I wouldn't trust Martin with such a responsability, and I don't care how many votes he got, trust is not something you win by election. Sorry but this argument sounds like utter bullshit to me. How do we know James is keeping people out of the keyring in order to prevent them from uploading rogue packages? Of course James can't prevent people from uploading rogue packages (even if peole could argue he's trying to, I mean, he's DAM _and_ keymaster _and_ ftpmaster), but I didn't say that, did I? You correlated security measures used in the handling of the keyring and the addition policy of the NM process. That is what I called bullshit. being lax in order to keep everyone happy, and erring on the side of caution, I prefer the person in his to position to do the later, and he incidentally does. But I am not talking about being lax in anything, neither in addition policies nor in security policies. Barring a few occasional idiots that come and go from -devel, nobody else is. It's the practice of holding people indefinitiely and refusing to improve the situation that's problematic. How the keyring is kept safe is orthogonal to that. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: NM non-process
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 02:41:44PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Trivialities such as people refusing to disclose their real names jump to mind. This strikes me as one of the *best* reasons to deny someone. If someone is unwilling even to trust Debian with their real name, then why should Debian (and Debian's users) trust them? I think you missed the sarcasm in Marcelo's post. At least, that's how I read it. Cheers, -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NM non-process
On Fri, Aug 08, 2003 at 12:55:14AM +0100, Colin Watson wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 02:41:44PM -0700, Adam McKenna wrote: On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 11:25:58PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: Trivialities such as people refusing to disclose their real names jump to mind. This strikes me as one of the *best* reasons to deny someone. If someone is unwilling even to trust Debian with their real name, then why should Debian (and Debian's users) trust them? I think you missed the sarcasm in Marcelo's post. At least, that's how I read it. Doh.. Sorry, I must learn to read one of these days. --Adam
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:58:17AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: with. The MIA problem is significant enough that NM might be the only way to tackle with it seriously. That means taking time to examine applications. BTW, has anybody done any research into what types of package maintainers tend to go MIA? I would be especially interested in a percentage of old style DD's, DD's who have gone through the NM process, people going MIA while in the NM queue, and people going MIA without ever even entering the NM queue. I'll try to do the statistics myself if nobody has done it before. And how many NMs go MIA because they still stuck in the NM queue after years? Should we ask them? :) I'm stuck since Dec. 2001 FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!! SOMEONE HELP ME!!! HELP ME SEE THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE NM TUNNEL!! AGGG!!! Oh well, this plea probably will go the way of the weekly RC bug report - ignored.. :) Since I started waiting for DAM, I saw a number of DDs get approved by their AM and accounts created, only later to go MIA Maybe it is better for them to go MIA in the NM queue in the first place? - Adam My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to direct emails about those bugs.
Re: NM non-process
* Goswin Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 05:35]: Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BTW, has anybody done any research into what types of package maintainers tend to go MIA? I would be especially interested in a percentage of old style DD's, DD's who have gone through the NM process, people going MIA while in the NM queue, and people going MIA without ever even entering the NM queue. I'll try to do the statistics myself if nobody has done it before. And how many NMs go MIA because they still stuck in the NM queue after years? Should we ask them? :) Many. While cleaning up the ITPs/RFPs I asked many packagers about the status of their package and got quite often a package is more or less ready, but I'm waiting of DAM-approval because I don't want the hassle of another sponsored package, or, what's worse a package was ok some time ago, but as Debian doesn't want me I stopped fixing it. Sad. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: NM non-process
Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Goswin Brederlow ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 05:35]: Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: BTW, has anybody done any research into what types of package maintainers tend to go MIA? I would be especially interested in a percentage of old style DD's, DD's who have gone through the NM process, people going MIA while in the NM queue, and people going MIA without ever even entering the NM queue. I'll try to do the statistics myself if nobody has done it before. And how many NMs go MIA because they still stuck in the NM queue after years? Should we ask them? :) Many. While cleaning up the ITPs/RFPs I asked many packagers about the status of their package and got quite often a package is more or less ready, but I'm waiting of DAM-approval because I don't want the hassle of another sponsored package, or, what's worse a package was ok some time ago, but as Debian doesn't want me I stopped fixing it. Sad. Till this morning I was one of those NMs not wanting the hassel of a sponsor but now I had to change my maintainers email and fix some RC bugs so I did bully someone to sponsor it. You wait 5 Month for the DAM and thus one should become DD any day now. Would you realy go hunting for a sponsor again? Now that I did I probably become DD tomorrow so it was a waste of time. .oO( Damn, now I jinxed become DD too again ). MfG Goswin
Re: NM non-process
* Adam Majer | My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for | his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to | direct emails about those bugs. I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or so) old, which is waiting for upstream to rewrite the program. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:10:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * Adam Majer | My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for | his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to | direct emails about those bugs. I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or so) old, which is waiting for upstream to rewrite the program. Is that noted in the log for the bug? Or would you respond to an e-mail enquiring as to the status of the bug? If either of those is true, then you're not MIA by Adam's definition (well, I added the bug log bit, but it's pretty much a pre-emptive answer to the question what's going on with that bug?). - Matt
Re: NM non-process
* Tollef Fog Heen ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 11:20]: * Adam Majer | My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for | his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to | direct emails about those bugs. I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or so) old, which is waiting for upstream to rewrite the program. It seems to me that you're responding to emails. ;-) (But: It seems usefull to me if a maintainer is writing status to each RC-bug within two weeks if the bug isn't closed; however, up to six weeks are acceptable once in a while, e.g. because of holidays.) Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: NM non-process
* Matthew Palmer | On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:10:08AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: | * Adam Majer | | | My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for | | his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to | | direct emails about those bugs. | | I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or | so) old, which is waiting for upstream to rewrite the program. | | Is that noted in the log for the bug? Naturally, yes. | Or would you respond to an e-mail enquiring as to the status of the | bug? Yes. | If either of those is true, then you're not MIA by Adam's definition | (well, I added the bug log bit, but it's pretty much a pre-emptive | answer to the question what's going on with that bug?). I misread, I read the «and» as an «or», which changes the semantics a bit. :) -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: NM non-process
Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Adam Majer | My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for | his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to | direct emails about those bugs. I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or so) old, which is waiting for upstream to rewrite the program. Taged forwarded? MfG Goswin
Re: NM non-process
* Goswin Brederlow | Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: | | * Adam Majer | | | My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for | | his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to | | direct emails about those bugs. | | I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or | so) old, which is waiting for upstream to rewrite the program. | | Taged forwarded? No, because that messes up my bug listings. That upstream knows about a bug does not mean he is working on a fix, so just marking all bugs forwarded isn't very useful, IMHO. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `-
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and should not be ignored. Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free software, which we work hard to promote. -- - mdz
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:41:20 -0400, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and should not be ignored. Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free software, which we work hard to promote. But splitting the entire project is a freedom I would hate to see exercised. In my opinion, things that threaten a project split to happen should be avoided before the split happens. Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15 Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29
Re: NM non-process
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 14:50]: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and should not be ignored. Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free software, which we work hard to promote. Because it would be a waste of work, time and energy. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:56:34PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 08:41:20 -0400, Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and should not be ignored. Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free software, which we work hard to promote. But splitting the entire project is a freedom I would hate to see exercised. In my opinion, things that threaten a project split to happen should be avoided before the split happens. Debian can't please everyone, any more than other projects can. That is why there are choices. -- - mdz
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:33:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 14:50]: Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free software, which we work hard to promote. Because it would be a waste of work, time and energy. Not if the projects have different goals. -- - mdz
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:07:40 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not if the projects have different goals. If the goal is the same only the process to that goal is broken then it is a waste of time and effort. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpiCn5FAzxd8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 07:14:00AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:07:40 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not if the projects have different goals. If the goal is the same only the process to that goal is broken then it is a waste of time and effort. I don't see your name on http://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php. What part of the process are you claiming is broken? -- - mdz
Re: NM non-process
Steve Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:07:40 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not if the projects have different goals. If the goal is the same only the process to that goal is broken then it is a waste of time and effort. Not if a new projects succedes in reaching that goal in a way superior to how the present Debian reaches the goal. Organizing a project from scratch can turn out to be the only way change bureaucracy and infrastructure that may make the goal harder to reach. Plan to throw one away can also be a good thing on the organizatoinal level. This is only abstract observations I'm not saying that Debian is in a state where it is necessary. I have no ideas for how to change Debian in a rational way whith the present goal as I see it. -- Peter Makholm |According to the hacker ethic, the meaning of life [EMAIL PROTECTED] |is not Friday, but it is not Sunday either http://hacking.dk | -- Peeka Himanen
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:30:11 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see your name on http://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php. What part of the process are you claiming is broken? I wasn't aware my name had to be on the list to recognize that some have been there for years. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpo1NVbqjlNE.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NM non-process
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:17:24AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Martin Schulze is also the Press Contact, so I certainly hope he has good communication skills! /me goes and yanks Joey's chain some more :o) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: NM non-process
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 11:44:11AM -0500, Steve Langasek wrote: If he doesn't want to, the DPL should really do something. Such as...? I think he's saying that the DPL should 'delegate his DAM power' to somebody else. The DAMs are after all officially appointed by the DPL... Quite. And who is he going to delegate it to? Himself, for example? He already does work on that front, he's certainly a trusted developer judging by the vote results (and there's no such record for any other officers, mind you), and in fact he said he helped James add some people already (IIRC there were over a dozen added that time). I don't see how could any other leader-related task be possibly more important than pretty much gracefully resolving an issue that's been plaguing us for the last several years. I see how it could be construed as a conflict of interest[1], but it's not like the process doesn't have plenty of means to prevent that. [1] I can see it now... tbm adding gobs of his peons to the project and voting to add Barbara Livi worship as 6th clause of the social contract! :) -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: NM non-process
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 07:03:11PM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote: with. The MIA problem is significant enough that NM might be the only way to tackle with it seriously. That means taking time to examine applications. BTW, has anybody done any research into what types of package maintainers tend to go MIA? I would be especially interested in a percentage of old style DD's, DD's who have gone through the NM process, people going MIA while in the NM queue, and people going MIA without ever even entering the NM queue. I'll try to do the statistics myself if nobody has done it before. I did some quick checking in the echelon a few weeks back and noticed a linear curve in how the number of MIA maintainers decreases with time. Meaning that among the first 100 developers, something like 15% are missing; among the fifth 100, 10%, and 5% in the tenth 100, or so (I don't remember exactly). This information is probably not worth much per se, though. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: NM non-process
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 06:36:10PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: Totally true. That's e.g. the reason why announcing the removal of old RFPs didn't appear in debian-devel-announce where it would have belonged - the submission was rejected by the moderators for the formal reason I'm not a DD. Did you even try to find a DD to sign it for you? Sign for what? I got a rejection mail on my try to post on d-d-a. This mail said clearly that I should post to d-d instead, and I followed this instructions. (As I would really liked something on d-d-a I asked at the beginning of my mail to d-d whether a DD could send a pointer to d-d-a.) Hence you understood my point in the explanation of the rejection message. That nobody did so is a different issue. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: NM non-process
On Tue, Jul 22, 2003 at 12:31:44AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: I didn't know that only DD could post on d-d-a. But to be honest, I would have expected that one of the list managers would adopt my message without much words if it is ok to post. As this didn't happen, I interpreted it so that the list managers don't want my mail to appear there and followed the instructions without any further ado. I just want to resolve problems, and not make formal ping-pongs. You probably got an automated reply. I've never seen before an automated reply with User-Agent: mutt/[...]. No, the rejection was not automated (there were also other signs of human edited, as a quotation line). Heh :) If I hadn't responded to it manually, it would have gotten ignored as spam (nobody cared enough to write a nice formail -r message because it happens rarely enough and the spambounces would waste us more resources). Any other developer can sign your mail and let it through. Us listmaster people have plenty to do without having to deal with content of the mailing lists like this -- there's gobs of people that need assistance with stuff only we can help them with (manual searches for subscribed address, and then forced (un)subscription) so we tend to spend time doing that instead. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:01:55AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:30:11 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see your name on http://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php. What part of the process are you claiming is broken? I wasn't aware my name had to be on the list to recognize that some have been there for years. And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate anything in particular. You need some familiarity with the process, or else the individual situations of the applicants, in order to claim that their status is unjust. -- - mdz
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 12:40:21PM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: Tollef Fog Heen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: * Adam Majer | My definition of MIA for DD: Doesn't fix release critical bugs for | his/her package(s) within a week or two and doesn't respond to | direct emails about those bugs. I guess I'm MIA, then, since I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or so) old, which is waiting for upstream to rewrite the program. Taged forwarded? When you have maintain a package, shouldn't you be able to fix it yourself? IMHO, people should not package or take over a package that they do not understand how it works. For example, a kernel maintainer should be a kernel developer. Or a Qt maintainer, should at least use Qt on dailly basis - preferably both commercially and/or for free software. People should maintain packages they are qualified to maintain and not becuase it would be neat to package that!. Sometimes you get really hairy bugs that even qualified developers would have trouble to fix... then you need to holer for help until somone helps... Isn't there a tag for Help Wanted or something? - Adam
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:56:20 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:01:55AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 10:30:11 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see your name on http://nm.debian.org/nmlist.php. What part of the process are you claiming is broken? I wasn't aware my name had to be on the list to recognize that some have been there for years. And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate anything in particular. Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are in, rejected, or the application closed because of a lack of interest on the developer's part. You need some familiarity with the process, or else the individual situations of the applicants, in order to claim that their status is unjust. No, I never said their status was unjust. I said the process appears broken. Two completely different statements. I cannot think of any conceivable justification for ANY application to be present for years. That has nothing to do with just or unjust. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgpshs1nobG4r.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote: Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are in, rejected, or the application closed because of a lack of interest on the developer's part. So, somewhere between 0 days, and 19*365 days, or 20 years. So, I see no problem then.
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote: No, I never said their status was unjust. I said the process appears broken. Two completely different statements. I cannot think of any conceivable justification for ANY application to be present for years. That has nothing to do with just or unjust. Saying it's broken, implies you know the exact nature for the delay for some applicants, and that their long waiting period is not due to some real reason, but due to some magic value. This implies you think it's unjust.
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:38:41AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 12:56:20 -0400 Matt Zimmerman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate anything in particular. Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are in, rejected, or the application closed because of a lack of interest on the developer's part. rand(3) doesn't take an argument, but if you meant a random integer from 0 through 19, then no applicant has come close to that upper limit of 20 years. You need some familiarity with the process, or else the individual situations of the applicants, in order to claim that their status is unjust. No, I never said their status was unjust. I said the process appears broken. Two completely different statements. I cannot think of any conceivable justification for ANY application to be present for years. That has nothing to do with just or unjust. If the applicants are not being treated unjustly, then I do not think that the process is broken. -- - mdz
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:09:15 -0500 (CDT) Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 6 Aug 2003, Steve Lamb wrote: Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are in, rejected, or the application closed because of a lack of interest on the developer's part. So, somewhere between 0 days, and 19*365 days, or 20 years. So, I see no problem then. Er, yeah, flubbed that one didn't I? Of course I did mentioned earlier tha a few months would be the acceptable limit on the outside. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgplVL8qw1hQy.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, 6 Aug 2003 13:11:47 -0500 (CDT) Adam Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, I never said their status was unjust. I said the process appears broken. Two completely different statements. I cannot think of any conceivable justification for ANY application to be present for years. That has nothing to do with just or unjust. Saying it's broken, implies you know the exact nature for the delay for some applicants, and that their long waiting period is not due to some real reason, but due to some magic value. This implies you think it's unjust. Erm, no, read my message again. The fact that there are people in the queue that long, regardless of reason, is an indication that something is wrong. If the people are there because the DAM doesn't have the cajones to say No, we don't want you in the project and decline their application is a problem. It has been said here several times about some people in the queue that they are in the queue because the DAM doesn't want to let them in, period. I am not saying the DAM is just or unjust in his determination. I'm saying that leaving them there when a determination has been made is broken. -- Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | main connection to the switchboard of souls. |-- Lenny Nero - Strange Days ---+- pgp5ogXSRCWMv.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NM non-process
Steve Lamb wrote: Actually, I think it does. They should either be accepted or rejected within x days. x being somewhere below rand(20) * 365. Either they are in, rejected, or the application closed because of a lack of interest on the developer's part. If it's the same rand function I remember: we're well below people waiting 18 years and 360 days. Cheers T. And no, my name's not on the NM applicant list. pgp2yVvY6PuMF.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:31:35AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote: Erm, no, read my message again. The fact that there are people in the queue that long, regardless of reason, is an indication that something is wrong. If the people are there because the DAM doesn't have the cajones to say I don't think the DAM's drawers are very on-topic here. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer pgptQORIk2nmJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:04:33PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: I see how it could be construed as a conflict of interest[1], but it's not like the process doesn't have plenty of means to prevent that. Ian Jackson could also see how it could :) Debian Constitution 2.2.2: 2. A person may hold several posts, except that the Project Leader, Project Secretary and the Chairman of the Technical Committee must be distinct, and that the Leader cannot appoint themselves as their own Delegate. Richard Braakman
Re: NM non-process
Matt Zimmerman said: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and should not be ignored. Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free software, which we work hard to promote. This is a danger because it's a stupid waste of effort. The Debian2 project would have exactly the same goals, and presumably most of the same software and processes, as Debian, except that it would be better about communicating: accepting or rejecting applicants in a timely manner, etc. Should we *have* to fork for *that*? The XFree86 people didn't want to have to fork for similar non-technical social issues, although forking was certainly considered. GCC had an egcs fork for similar social reasons, and eventually it 'took over' the main GCC development line, which ended up pleasing everyone. It seems better all around to just fix the breakage with the Debian processes, *if* possible. -- Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: NM non-process
Peter Makholm said: Organizing a project from scratch can turn out to be the only way change bureaucracy and infrastructure that may make the goal harder to reach. True. But it's a lot of effort, and it it's *NOT* the only way, we would therefore prefer to try the other way first! -- Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: NM non-process
Matt Zimmerman wrote: And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate anything in particular. Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a breakdown in the communication process. If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be written down publically in the appropriate place. If the people are in fact being rejected, they should be politely REJECTED: either being told to try again later when they have more time or skills, or to please not apply again at all (or for at least X years); depending on the situation. This may cause some flames from them, but will clear the air for everyone else. If there's a 3 month backlog just because DAM is too busy, the DPL needs to promptly add more people to DAM, to work in parallel. Including the DPL himself if necessary. It sounds like this is not actually the case, oddly enough. Your application will either be accepted, or will sit in limbo indefinitely, is not an acceptable system for *any* organization. Governments get sued when they do this. I can't understand why people keep defending it. -- Nathanael Nerode neroden at gcc.gnu.org http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Matt Zimmerman wrote: And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate anything in particular. Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a breakdown in the communication process. Communication with whom? I don't think that anyone besides the applicant himself needs to be informed. If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be written down publically in the appropriate place. I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then the fact that this information is not published on the website does not indicate that the process is broken. If the people are in fact being rejected, they should be politely REJECTED: either being told to try again later when they have more time or skills, or to please not apply again at all (or for at least X years); depending on the situation. This may cause some flames from them, but will clear the air for everyone else. I agree. If there's a 3 month backlog just because DAM is too busy, the DPL needs to promptly add more people to DAM, to work in parallel. Including the DPL himself if necessary. It sounds like this is not actually the case, oddly enough. DAM-ness does not seem to parallelize well; it is not a matter of simple manual labor. -- - mdz
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 09:40:03PM +0300, Richard Braakman wrote: I see how it could be construed as a conflict of interest[1], but it's not like the process doesn't have plenty of means to prevent that. Ian Jackson could also see how it could :) Debian Constitution 2.2.2: the Leader cannot appoint themselves as their own Delegate. Given how no leader ever appointed most of the so-called delegates, I don't see why this would need to be relevant. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: I have an RC bug which is 156 days (or so) old, which is waiting for upstream to rewrite the program. When you have maintain a package, shouldn't you be able to fix it yourself? He said rewrite. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 06:04:33PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: Himself, for example? He already does work on that front, he's certainly a trusted developer judging by the vote results (and there's no such record for any other officers, mind you), and in fact he said he helped James add some people already You mean you actually think James can even consider the possibility of handing the management of the keyring over? Because that's actually the point. It's not who's the DAM or who isn't. The problem is who's the keymaster. Unless things have radically changed while I was not looking, you might have an account on a Debian machine, which might enable you to do some more work than people without one. But without a key in the keyring, you can't upload zilch. And the person who's in charge of the keyring has to be as paranoid as James. The other person in the project that comes to mind is Manoj. And that's it. I wouldn't trust Martin with such a responsability, and I don't care how many votes he got, trust is not something you win by election. There's a number of people who I can imagine would get named for this task, but I've seen how these people handle ID checks, I don't even want to think how they would handle the Debian keyring. I might disagree with James' methods, but I can't honestly say he's doing this in bad faith. I do wish he was a bit more talkative in this particular issue, though. Marcelo
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:41:37PM +0200, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote: the person who's in charge of the keyring has to be as paranoid as James. The other person in the project that comes to mind is Manoj. And that's it. I wouldn't trust Martin with such a responsability, and I don't care how many votes he got, trust is not something you win by election. Sorry but this argument sounds like utter bullshit to me. How do we know James is keeping people out of the keyring in order to prevent them from uploading rogue packages? What proof do we have that methods employed by him will actually have any bearing whatsoever on whether someone does something evil? I fail to see how holding gobs of people indefinitely can be singlehandedly excused with paranoia without any real evidence to even support the claim. It seems like blatant handwaving to me. Take that as you will. -- 2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Re: NM non-process
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 16:20]: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:56:34PM +0200, Marc Haber wrote: But splitting the entire project is a freedom I would hate to see exercised. In my opinion, things that threaten a project split to happen should be avoided before the split happens. Debian can't please everyone, any more than other projects can. That is why there are choices. Certainly it is good that the freedom of choice exists. However, it is even better if no-one sees a need for doing the split. That doesn't reduce the necessity of having the freedom of choice of course. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: NM non-process
* Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 16:20]: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:33:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: * Matt Zimmerman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 14:50]: Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free software, which we work hard to promote. Because it would be a waste of work, time and energy. Not if the projects have different goals. I haven't seen different goals from debian, but just frustration. Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: NM non-process
* Josip Rodin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030806 18:35]: Heh :) If I hadn't responded to it manually, it would have gotten ignored as spam (nobody cared enough to write a nice formail -r message because it happens rarely enough and the spambounces would waste us more resources). [policy of d-d-a] Yes, I can see the problem. However, it would have helped me much if this policy would have been clearly stated at http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/ (should I open a bug, or can it be fixed without?). Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: IMHO, people should not package or take over a package that they do not understand how it works. For example, a kernel maintainer [...] People should maintain packages they are qualified to maintain Well, I see you're taking your own advice to heart. Sometimes you get really hairy bugs that even qualified developers would have trouble to fix... then you need to holer for help until somone helps... Isn't there a tag for Help Wanted or something? Yes. It's called 'help'. And it doesn't get used an awful lot. - Matt
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 08:41:20AM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:56:59AM +0200, Goswin Brederlow wrote: I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and should not be ignored. Why is this a danger? This is one of the freedoms provided by free software, which we work hard to promote. Because while it is one of the freedomes provide by free software, and one we work hard to promote, there would be a lot of time and effort in setting up another Debian-like infrastructure. This effort could be put toward the current Debian infrastructure if it was accepted (which remains to be seen), rather than to reimplementing a good deal of the already existing infrastructure for another project. This could in some ways result in something of a competition for developers between the two projects, thus resulting in each being something less than they could have been as one. -- Jamin W. Collins
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 03:16:12PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Matt Zimmerman wrote: And neither does the fact that some have been there for years indicate anything in particular. Here is where you're entirely and totally wrong. It indicates a breakdown in the communication process. Communication with whom? I don't think that anyone besides the applicant himself needs to be informed. Based on the e-mails from many of these applicants (private and to the list), the applicants are *not* being informed at all. As for whether the applicant is the only one that should be informed, I disagree. If there's a problem with the application it should be clearly noted on the application status. If these people are being delayed for a reason, the reason needs to be written down publically in the appropriate place. I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then the fact that this information is not published on the website does not indicate that the process is broken. That's a pretty big *if*, and as I've indicated above the applicants don't seem to be informed or contacted. -- Jamin W. Collins This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar
Re: NM non-process
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:18:00AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: Sometimes you get really hairy bugs that even qualified developers would have trouble to fix... then you need to holer for help until somone helps... Isn't there a tag for Help Wanted or something? Yes. It's called 'help'. And it doesn't get used an awful lot. Oh, I don't know: http://bugs.debian.org/tag:help Maybe not as much as it should be, but still not bad. I'm quite heartened by the number of resolved bugs there. While I'm at it, a quick and possibly irrelevant bit of stats-pr0n I just did (note that it counts resolved bugs too): http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgindex.cgi?indexon=tag -- Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NM non-process
On Thu, Aug 07, 2003 at 08:18:00AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 11:58:22AM -0500, Adam Majer wrote: IMHO, people should not package or take over a package that they do not understand how it works. For example, a kernel maintainer [...] People should maintain packages they are qualified to maintain Well, I see you're taking your own advice to heart. Yes I am. I don't see any RC bugs about my packages :) Find one and I'll fix it if upstream doesn't (or hasn't). Sometimes packages are teminally broken (likes jikes 1.16 or 1.17) in which case it is better to downgrade than upgrade. - Adam PS. If any bugs against my packages bother you very much, tell me (and why is it critical for you) and I'll see what I can do. The largest problem for me is time - for next few days I have a large project to complete. The only package that I may not be qualified for is Jikes. And that's because I don't know the internals of JVM and Java opcode... or *all* the internals of Jikes... I'm thinking of filling a RFA: on jikes. But it is still better than it being O: like it was for some time before I picked it up.
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:34:06PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then the fact that this information is not published on the website does not indicate that the process is broken. That's a pretty big *if*, and as I've indicated above the applicants don't seem to be informed or contacted. This condition was directed at people who seem to be complaining about the process without being involved in it, nor in communication with those who are. These days, there are more complaints about NM from the peanut gallery than from the applicants themselves. -- - mdz
Re: NM non-process
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 10:22:01PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 05:34:06PM -0600, Jamin W. Collins wrote: On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 04:09:15PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote: I disagree; if the applicant knows why they are being delayed, then the fact that this information is not published on the website does not indicate that the process is broken. That's a pretty big *if*, and as I've indicated above the applicants don't seem to be informed or contacted. This condition was directed at people who seem to be complaining about the process without being involved in it, nor in communication with those who are. These days, there are more complaints about NM from the peanut gallery than from the applicants themselves. Perhaps that's because the applicants have found that their attempts to voice their complaints are ignored. Just because someone is in the peanut gallery doesn't mean they can't see a problem with the current state of things WRT the NM queue. A recent run (moments ago) of my nm-status script shows that there are a number of new comments that have been added to some of the applicants that are awaiting DAM approval. This looks rather promising. -- Jamin W. Collins This is the typical unix way of doing things: you string together lots of very specific tools to accomplish larger tasks. -- Vineet Kumar
Re: NM non-process
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:17:24AM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote: Martin Schulze is listed as the other DAM member. He's also the Press Contact, so I certainly hope he has good communication skills! And the Stable Release Manager, and a member of the Security Team, and a member of debian-admin. What makes you think he would give a higher priority to DAM work than James currently does? Actually, given that Joey is already listed as part of DAM, and isn't actively involved, doesn't this suggest he already gives a lower priority to this work? As far as I heard Matrin is only there in case the DAM dies. He won't create or delete account on his own while the DAM is still breathing (or thought to be). MfG Goswin
Re: NM non-process
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathanael Nerode) writes: Steve Langasek said: I don't think it irrelevant that those clamouring loudest for the DPL to do something to fix the situation are people who don't actually have a say in the outcome of DPL elections. While I'm not happy to see such long DAM wait times, I'm also not volunteering to take on the thankless job myself. No, it's not irrelevant. It means precisely that Debian is in danger of becoming an unresponsive, closed group which does not admit new people. If this continues for, say, 2 more years, I would expect a new Project to be formed, replicating what Debian is doing, but admitting new people. I'd probably be right there starting it. That would be a stupid waste of effort, so I hope it turns out to be unnecessary. I know of several DDs and non-DDs thinking about creating a Debian2 (or whatever named) project due to this and other lack of responce problems and the group is growing. The danger is already there and should not be ignored. MfG Goswin
Re: NM non-process
Kalle Kivimaa [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Roland Mas [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: with. The MIA problem is significant enough that NM might be the only way to tackle with it seriously. That means taking time to examine applications. BTW, has anybody done any research into what types of package maintainers tend to go MIA? I would be especially interested in a percentage of old style DD's, DD's who have gone through the NM process, people going MIA while in the NM queue, and people going MIA without ever even entering the NM queue. I'll try to do the statistics myself if nobody has done it before. And how many NMs go MIA because they still stuck in the NM queue after years? Should we ask them? :) MfG Goswin
Re: NM non-process
On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 10:28:15PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: Why does a non-DD need to find a DD to sign and forward the mail to dda? Why cant he sign it himself and post it to the list? The message has to be approved by the moderator anyway. Mail to debian-devel-announce is (usually[0]) approved or rejected by a script which checks signatures against the debian keyring, not by a human moderator. [0] With samosa dead, I'm not sure what is currently happening Samosa is not used for signature checking, it's only used for checking group membership. Murphy (lists.debian.org) has its own copy of the keyring, which it uses to check signatures on the -announce lists. Cheers, Pasc pgpn3GVxwTOFv.pgp Description: PGP signature
