Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 01:39:39AM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote: I also learned tonight that a few of the things I was complaining about were being worked on (though I was not aware of it), The fact that the DPL does not know about important things going on with Debian is a strong indicator that there is something wrong with the communication behavior of people in key positions. Greetings Marc, who thinks that Sam did well -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: NM process, AMs, advocates, mentors and applicants
On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:51:42PM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote: Hm, it didn't seem like a mentor role to me. Being a mentor involves telling the mentee how to solve a problem and helping them work through the learning process. I would've said it involves helping them work through the process repeatedly, until they don't need any help; possibly introducing new difficulties at each cycle. A good mentor ought to be able to tell when the mentee's reached the point that they no longer need any help. I'd consider the release assistant stuff to follow that sort of structure, personally; it definitely has an educational component as well as practical work, and it also has the mentors evaluating the progress and deciding at some point that they've reached the point where they can do the work on their own. It felt more like a practical examination to me than a mentor relationship. Which is fine too, of course; but it's the sort of thing that works well for people who're already competent and confident in their abilities, and really badly for people who're nervous or just don't know where to start. Of course, if someone is already skilled, then it's better to just have them demonstrate that than try to teach them things they already know, in which case worrying too much about mentoring is a bad idea. Cheers, aj signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
Marc Haber wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 01:39:39AM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote: I also learned tonight that a few of the things I was complaining about were being worked on (though I was not aware of it), The fact that the DPL does not know about important things going on with Debian is a strong indicator that there is something wrong with the communication behavior of people in key positions. The DPL does not need to know every bit of current work of every team or developer. Regards, Joey -- Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about its friends. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:03:32AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: The fact that the DPL does not know about important things going on with Debian is a strong indicator that there is something wrong with the communication behavior of people in key positions. The DPL does not need to know every bit of current work of every team or developer. Did you miss the important things bit? And please, don't pursue this argument, it's so ridiculous. Are you really going to claim in the near future that there weren't communication behavior issues between the project and DSA? If not, forget the above paragraph, but maybe you need to better explain what was your point ... -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ... now what? [EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ (15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ?/\All one has to do is hit the (15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema\/right keys at the right time signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:03:32AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: The fact that the DPL does not know about important things going on with Debian is a strong indicator that there is something wrong with the communication behavior of people in key positions. The DPL does not need to know every bit of current work of every team or developer. Did you miss the important things bit? I did not. What you consider important may not important to others. And please, don't pursue this argument, it's so ridiculous. Are you really going to claim in the near future that there weren't communication behavior issues between the project and DSA? Pot, kettle, black. Regards, Joey -- Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about its friends. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
Hi, Le mercredi 21 novembre 2007 à 01:02 +, Joey Hess a écrit : With the upload of debian-maintainers version 1.2, the following changes to the keyring have been made: In the future, it would be nice if these mails could also specify which packages the DMs are allowed to upload. Thanks, -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
Le mercredi 21 novembre 2007 à 11:21 +0100, Martin Schulze a écrit : I did not. What you consider important may not important to others. And obviously some of the core teams don't consider as important some things that are critical for the rest of the project. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:35:18AM +, Josselin Mouette wrote: Hi, Le mercredi 21 novembre 2007 à 01:02 +, Joey Hess a écrit : With the upload of debian-maintainers version 1.2, the following changes to the keyring have been made: In the future, it would be nice if these mails could also specify which packages the DMs are allowed to upload. OTOH this is a moving target, as the DM-keyring maintainers are not the ones dealing with that, but the sponsors. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpfS3RSnRp2n.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
also sprach Martin Schulze [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.11.21.1121 +0100]: And please, don't pursue this argument, it's so ridiculous. Are you really going to claim in the near future that there weren't communication behavior issues between the project and DSA? Pot, kettle, black. /me fetches popcorn. Come on, guys, don't be ridiculous. Or are we actually flamewar addicts? Sam's mail was to James, CC the project. Don't you think that it's a little immature and definitely very premature to discuss the matter before James sent his own reply? Or is James a religious figure or helpless toddler that needs help defending himself? This whole thing reminds me a lot of http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/02/msg00116.html and the ensuing thread. aj replied. James? -- .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems die zeit für kleine politik ist vorbei. schon das nächste jahrhundert bringt den kampf um die erdherrschaft. - friedrich nietzsche digital_signature_gpg.asc Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
Le mercredi 21 novembre 2007 à 11:35 +0100, Josselin Mouette a écrit : In the future, it would be nice if these mails could also specify which packages the DMs are allowed to upload. Ah, don't worry, I was just explained how the things work. I knew this DM thing was broken, but I hadn't understood yet the point of cluelessness it required to be designed. -- .''`. : :' : We are debian.org. Lower your prices, surrender your code. `. `' We will add your hardware and software distinctiveness to `-our own. Resistance is futile. signature.asc Description: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Martin Schulze wrote: Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:03:32AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: The fact that the DPL does not know about important things going on with Debian is a strong indicator that there is something wrong with the communication behavior of people in key positions. The DPL does not need to know every bit of current work of every team or developer. Did you miss the important things bit? I did not. What you consider important may not important to others. Again: Information about facts the DPL is complaining about should be regarded as important enough to make people feel that they have some relevance for the project and thus should be shared amongst people those who should know it (inclusive the DPL). And please, don't pursue this argument, it's so ridiculous. Are you really going to claim in the near future that there weren't communication behavior issues between the project and DSA? Pot, kettle, black. Uhm, what? I completely miss the point of all your arguing, sorry. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:36:04AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: In the future, it would be nice if these mails could also specify which packages the DMs are allowed to upload. OTOH this is a moving target, as the DM-keyring maintainers are not the ones dealing with that, but the sponsors. DM is meant for people who are already uploading packages through sponsors. So at first the packages they'll be uploading will be (at most) the ones they already are in the uploader list for. DM-Upload-Allowed may of course not yet be set. A list of packages with their name on it would be useful IMO. This is not to be mistaken for what they are allowed to upload now (assuming they have DM status), and it's not what they may in the future be allowed to upload (which is everything). Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://pcbcn10.phys.rug.nl/e-mail.html signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I knew this DM thing was broken, but I hadn't understood yet the point of cluelessness it required to be designed. Could you enlighten us clueless as to what you find clueless in the DM system? -- * Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology (T.P) * * PGP public key available @ http://www.iki.fi/killer * -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:35:18AM +, Josselin Mouette wrote: Hi, Le mercredi 21 novembre 2007 à 01:02 +, Joey Hess a écrit : With the upload of debian-maintainers version 1.2, the following changes to the keyring have been made: In the future, it would be nice if these mails could also specify which packages the DMs are allowed to upload. Here is the current list. I note that the 4th package made an interesting choice indeed. $ zcat Sources.gz | grep-dctrl -FDM-Upload-Allowed yes -sPackage,Maintainer,Uploaders Package: a7xpg Maintainer: Debian Games Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter De Wachter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: apt-transport-debtorrent Maintainer: Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: bittornado Maintainer: Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Micah Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: debian-maintainers Maintainer: Debian Maintainer Keyring Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Joey Hess [EMAIL PROTECTED], Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED], Anibal Monsalve Salazar [EMAIL PROTECTED], Brian Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christoph Berg [EMAIL PROTECTED], James Troup [EMAIL PROTECTED], Joerg Jaspert [EMAIL PROTECTED], Marc Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED], Michael Beattie [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ryan Murray [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: debtorrent Maintainer: Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: gunroar Maintainer: Debian Games Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter De Wachter [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: gzip Maintainer: Bdale Garbee [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: libphp-adodb Maintainer: Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: torrentflux Maintainer: Cameron Dale [EMAIL PROTECTED] Package: tumiki-fighters Maintainer: Debian Games Team [EMAIL PROTECTED] Uploaders: Miriam Ruiz [EMAIL PROTECTED], Peter De Wachter [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpLPKROHH8Ak.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: About spam in the list archive
Raphael Geissert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I administer some servers with customers and these are some of the facts I've found: * Many spam emails do not comply with the specs Meaning: enforcing the RFC's when receiving emails could block some spam I agree entirely. Also, Exim's acl's seem to allow a flexible score-based way to set these things up. If the sender matches an RBL, you add a bit to the score; if it botches its HELO, add a bit to the score and so on. After dealing with the obvious failures and passes, you can take stuff in the grey area and behave a bit oddly, such as slower responses, and see if that makes the remote end breach protocol. Many spammers will breach protocol if you do anything even a little unusual and I'm happy to reject the email then. Last time I checked, I was rejecting well over 50% of send attempts even before they reached the expensive content checks and I'm pretty confident that they were junk. I should document my setup soon... Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
Andreas Tille wrote: Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:03:32AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: The fact that the DPL does not know about important things going on with Debian is a strong indicator that there is something wrong with the communication behavior of people in key positions. The DPL does not need to know every bit of current work of every team or developer. Did you miss the important things bit? I did not. What you consider important may not important to others. Again: Information about facts the DPL is complaining about should be regarded as important enough to make people feel that they have some relevance for the project and thus should be shared amongst people those who should know it (inclusive the DPL). Then the outcome should be reported. Not the beginning of a process. Regards, Joey -- Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about its friends. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Martin Schulze wrote: Then the outcome should be reported. Not the beginning of a process. To d-d-a yes, to those people who are gathering people or trying other means to solve the problem (as the DPL did) it might be really useful information that there is work in progress to adjust his doings apropriately. This process is widely known under the term teamwork and has the precondition that team members respect the work of others. Kind regards Andreas. -- http://fam-tille.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
Josip Rodin wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 11:03:32AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote: Marc Haber wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 01:39:39AM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote: I also learned tonight that a few of the things I was complaining about were being worked on (though I was not aware of it), The fact that the DPL does not know about important things going on with Debian is a strong indicator that there is something wrong with the communication behavior of people in key positions. The DPL does not need to know every bit of current work of every team or developer. Leave it to Joey to go off on a completely pointless tangent in a oneliner that is intended to sound oh so knowing... I've been seeing these pretentious quips for many years now, and guess what - they're still not insightful, except in the way that they continue to provide an insight into how the project is generally stuck with the likes of yourself. It's actually quite indicative that you thought it was a good idea to reply here - James at least has the simple decency to keep quiet when he doesn't have time to do all the things he's in charge of (even if that silence is often annoying as well), but he at least recognizes the problems, and he set up the RT as a way of dealing with them. You, on the other hand, actually refuse to use that RT, as I'm told. Yet you don't seem to mind participating, however feebly, in mailing list discussions like this one. That is really contemptible. I recognise that I haven't done anything useful yet and will probably not do anything useful in the future. I shall be silent for you as well from now on. Joey -- Unix is user friendly ... It's just picky about its friends. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
MJ Ray wrote: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam's mail was to James, CC the project. Don't you think that it's a little immature and definitely very premature to discuss the matter before James sent his own reply? Yep. Hopefully a reply will come. I also hope there was an attempt at private communication before that open letter, but there was no indication of it. Reading the mail of Sam give the impression that that was not really attempt to contact him with email or IRC, But reading carefully: : This is certainly no longer something : about which I can afford to wait 2 months between each answer : from you. I think Sam contacted several time elmo about the issue. ciao cate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
On Wednesday 21 November 2007, MJ Ray wrote: martin f krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sam's mail was to James, CC the project. Don't you think that it's a little immature and definitely very premature to discuss the matter before James sent his own reply? Yep. Hopefully a reply will come. I also hope there was an attempt at private communication before that open letter, but there was no indication of it. there was actually, namely the following bit at the end: This is certainly no longer something about which I can afford to wait 2 months between each answer from you. -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007, Bas Wijnen wrote: I would expect that adding DM-Upload-Allowed should be a concious decision which is to be made when a specific person is (about to become) a DM and should be allowed to upload this specific package. If I am right in this, it makes no sense to set this flag when only DDs are maintaining it. Do others have other ideas about this flag? Do people just set it everywhere to show support for the DM system, or something? I think the flag has been added to some packages as a mean to do some real tests early during the development (even without any DM). Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
Hi, On Wednesday 21 November 2007 12:10, Martin Schulze wrote: Then the outcome should be reported. Not the beginning of a process. Sometimes it's very useful information too, to learn a process has been started. Or stalled. Or reached an important milestone. It's not always the result in the end that's interesting. regards, Holger pgpPZ39HIZ8vm.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On 21/11/2007, Raphael Hertzog wrote: I think the flag has been added to some packages as a mean to do some real tests early during the development (even without any DM). See the changelog entry for 0.03: | [snip] | * Add Dm-Upload-Allowed: yes header to allow for access control of |automatic byhand processing. | [snip] Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois pgpddNKYPiH1Q.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
Giacomo A. Catenazzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: : This is certainly no longer something : about which I can afford to wait 2 months between each answer : from you. I think Sam contacted several time elmo about the issue. OK, thanks to both for pointing that out. Too subtle for me... maybe I'm too used to evil politicians putting things like that as a will you stop attacking hamsters? ploy. Regards, -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
Bas Wijnen wrote: I would expect that adding DM-Upload-Allowed should be a concious decision which is to be made when a specific person is (about to become) a DM and should be allowed to upload this specific package. If I am right in this, it makes no sense to set this flag when only DDs are maintaining it. Do others have other ideas about this flag? Do people just set it everywhere to show support for the DM system, or something? debian-maintainers (0.03) unstable; urgency=low * Add Dm-Upload-Allowed: yes header to allow for access control of automatic byhand processing. HTH -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007, Martin Schulze wrote: Again: Information about facts the DPL is complaining about should be regarded as important enough to make people feel that they have some relevance for the project and thus should be shared amongst people those who should know it (inclusive the DPL). Then the outcome should be reported. Not the beginning of a process. Reporting the beginning of a process is crucial for a project our size and I hope only a few dinosaurs still share your view. Not reporting can happen for many reasons, but firmly believing that it's useless is really insulting to the rest of the developers. By the way, the contents of this paragraph from the platform that got me elected should not surprise anyone: | Proper reporting is part of these rules. It not only helps the | current project by making communication better, but it also helps | future projects learn from our schedule, missed deadlines and the | reasons for them. Sadly, I don’t know how to get proper reporting | without making it a mandatory condition for staying at the appointed | position. I have seen many people playing dead then suddenly reacting | to public blame. But I’m willing to consider more constructive | alternatives. Regards, -- Sam. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Retiring as an Application Manager
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...] Your AM work was below average and created more work for everyone else down the line. [...] In short, the above is a symptom of a misstructured NM process. Current NM tests the AM and some myths way too much. NM should be about testing the applicant. The AM's knowledge (or lack thereof) should not enter into it until their last step, perfoming a summative test before passing the profile to FD. If they can't apply the test properly, that should become obvious and there should be a clear way to deal with that, not left to hints and then locking AM accounts. Sorry, but that's simply not true. We do rely on the AM to do the most important part of the NM process by gathering all data needed to assess an applicant's knowledge and skill. Later steps are solely based on the report submitted by the application manager, so it should contain all needed information. Debian has at no point defined rules what a DD needs to know - as a common ground, we have some very basic philosophical issues [1]. All technical skills depend on the interest of the NM. If an applicant is interested in doing web service maintenance, he will have to show his knowledge in that area (by packaging such software, explaining common security problems in such applications, ...), while an applicant interested in porting will need to display different skills. I believe that this dynamic system is much more useful than sitting down and creating one long list of topics that all applicants need to know about, never going too deep into one subject - OTOH, it enforces application managers to know about all of these topics enough to ask the right questions (and actually check them), so doing the NM checks becomes more than applying a pre-fabricated test. Marc Footnotes: [1] All applicants are required to give a signed statement that they know and agree to uphold the social contract -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:46:31AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Bas Wijnen wrote: I would expect that adding DM-Upload-Allowed should be a concious decision which is to be made when a specific person is (about to become) a DM and should be allowed to upload this specific package. If I am right in this, it makes no sense to set this flag when only DDs are maintaining it. Do others have other ideas about this flag? Do people just set it everywhere to show support for the DM system, or something? debian-maintainers (0.03) unstable; urgency=low * Add Dm-Upload-Allowed: yes header to allow for access control of automatic byhand processing. I must have lost my awareness device, but what is it supposed to mean ? Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Making Debian work: a question of trust indeed
On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 02:06:57PM +0100, Holger Levsen wrote: On Wednesday 21 November 2007 12:10, Martin Schulze wrote: Then the outcome should be reported. Not the beginning of a process. Sometimes it's very useful information too, to learn a process has been started. Or stalled. Or reached an important milestone. It's not always the result in the end that's interesting. I could not agree more. Having this information is not only a motivational issue, but it is also vital when you would like to gain some insight in how things work. This will probably help new volunteers in accumulating knowledge that will once enable them to offer help to the team in question. _I_ have moved to open source because I hate working with black boxes with internals that I don't know. Having the source for the software I work with available enables me to better understand what it does and to make better use of it. I can find better workarounds for bugs (or even _fix_ them *gasp*). This is really really really great. Otoh, I hate every day that I am faced with so many black boxes formed from humans in the Debian project. It would be great to gain some insight into these boxes as well. Greetings Marc -- - Marc Haber | I don't trust Computers. They | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | lose things.Winona Ryder | Fon: *49 621 72739834 Nordisch by Nature | How to make an American Quilt | Fax: *49 3221 2323190 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: About spam in the list archive
Hello Raphael, Raphael Geissert wrote: I know this won't help dealing with already received spam and such, but it may help reduce the amount of spam received in the future. Reducing the amount of spam is good. However, when I wrote Also note that all this is about the archive spam policy only. that was because this is what I am trying to implement[1]. If you are more interested in the more general state of the Debian lists, please allow me to suggest using the bits sent last month[1] as a starting point. In particular, there is a lot of information on the setup, a link to the repository of the filters in use, which format suggestions should have to be easily implementable, etc. I am sure your ideas have a lot of merit, but posting them to this thread might not be the ideal way of sharing them. Kind regards Thomas 1. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/10/msg4.html -- Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Updated Debian Maintainers Keyring
Mike Hommey wrote: On Wed, Nov 21, 2007 at 10:46:31AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote: Bas Wijnen wrote: I would expect that adding DM-Upload-Allowed should be a concious decision which is to be made when a specific person is (about to become) a DM and should be allowed to upload this specific package. If I am right in this, it makes no sense to set this flag when only DDs are maintaining it. Do others have other ideas about this flag? Do people just set it everywhere to show support for the DM system, or something? debian-maintainers (0.03) unstable; urgency=low * Add Dm-Upload-Allowed: yes header to allow for access control of automatic byhand processing. I must have lost my awareness device, but what is it supposed to mean ? byhand processing: Necessary for all source packages that produce non-deb/udeb files, such as a keyring, or d-i boot images. As much fun as NEW, except you get to deal with it on every upload. automatic byhand processing: An oxymoronic term for automating the above in specific cases. raw-keyring processing is a more modern term for this case. Details of how all this works in DAK, explained by someone who actually understands it, with pointers to the code that does the processing: http://lists.debian.org/debian-dak/2007/10/msg9.html -- see shy jo signature.asc Description: Digital signature
developer.php DM-Upload-Allowed field
Package: qa.debian.org Bas Wijnen wrote: DM is meant for people who are already uploading packages through sponsors. So at first the packages they'll be uploading will be (at most) the ones they already are in the uploader list for. DM-Upload-Allowed may of course not yet be set. A list of packages with their name on it would be useful IMO. This is not to be mistaken for what they are allowed to upload now (assuming they have DM status), and it's not what they may in the future be allowed to upload (which is everything). Adding a field[1] to http://qa.debian.org/developer.php listing the dm-upload-allowed status of each package would nicely solve this. I'd also find such a field useful when reveiwing a DM's packages during application processing. -- see shy jo [1] or some other indicator, it has too many fields already signature.asc Description: Digital signature
