Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Mike Hommey]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:28:04AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive
> > and that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual
> > files is unnecessary if you have all of the licenses accounted for
> > (and potentially copyright notices, which are the main topic of
> > current disagreement).  I do agree with you that having that written
> > down somewhere would be good, though.
> 
> (My interpretation is the same.)
> 
> FWIW, I consider listing files in DEP5-style an advantage in complex
> packages because it helps out in checking for the completeness of your
> license/copyright review. Yes, it is more work, but you gain that you
> can check whether a given source file has been forgotten.

Have you tried it on packages with 1000+ files, with a spaghetti of
licenses ? It's not a gain for those.

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Joerg Jaspert]

> What I don't get from your text is: are you aware of the extra reviews
> on a per-package basis, or you just noticed that tose packages are
> usually OK and then discovered that the reasons are extra reviews?

Noticed after lotsa uploads. The reasons I guess from the little i know
about the group.

-- 
bye, Joerg
> 16. What should you do if a security bug is discovered in one of your 
> packages?
1) Notify t...@s.d.o ASAP.
2) Notify upstream.
3) Try to create a patch.
4) Find out that Joey was faster.
[...]


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Joerg Jaspert]

> This, however, sounds like a good reason for few application. You are
> basically requesting people, most likely already involved in Debian
> and doing that in their spare time, to have to offer 5-10 additional
> hours per week, to know as much programming languages as possible, and
> (IIRC) to know the dak code base and be willing to work on it.

Nah, the code stuff is an extra for the people, we dont force people to
work on dak code.

-- 
bye, Joerg
> What would you do if your package contains an Emacs major mode?
Orphan it.
>  If you don't use/know Emacs then this: What would you do if your
>  package contains a perl module?
Submit it to this year's obfuscated coding contest.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 02:04:34AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:

> > Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.

> Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
> checking the copyright file.

He's right that binary NEW is not the right time to be applying unrelated
sourceful checks to packages.  If ftpmaster feels the need to spot-check
packages, that's fine, but that shouldn't be coupled to package renames
where the purpose of NEW is to keep control of the package namespace and set
the archive overrides.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM queues processing

[Ana Guerrero]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> This is how I see the process right now, from the applicant's POV:
>

Actually it is:

> - Applicant applies
> - DD advocates
>   (wait1)
- FD ask NM what they do in Debian? [1] Currently, this is a email sent 
manually.
- NM answers FD. If applicant is active, it can take some time :)
- FD evualuates and in some cases put the applicant in hold.
(wait 1.5 -> you are ok, wait for AM)
(wait 1 extended -> wait until you have contributed enought to get AM)

> - AM assigned
> - Work with the AM (P&P, T&S and whatever is needed)
> - AM sends report
>   (wait2)
> - FD checks the application
>   (wait3)
> - DAM reviews the application
>   (wait4)
> - DAM creates the account
> - Key added to the keyring
> - Shell access to developer machines
>

This "sending a email" step is no documented in the webssite and I do not see 
it a as a oficial step. But it could be included in the "FD evualuates NM to 
assign AM" part.

[1]
http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/nm/trunk/doc/front-desk/templates/activity-poll?rev=994&sc=1

> 
> - Reducing wait1 is complicated. Some possibilities for accelerating this are:
>   + Recruiting more AMs

This is not easy. AM is not a "fun job" and recruiting DDs who are not really 
interested in AMing (mentoring and teching in some level) is not a good idea.
If you do not like doing this too much and you do it because you kind of feel
forced, you will tend to procrastinate to answer your NM :)
I have not lived this, but I have seen this in others DDs who kind of feel
forced to help with NM.
Also, you have the DDs who would work as AM but do not fully like the current
process for many different reasons. For example, dislike the templates.

>   + Reducing the time an AM spends with the applicant. Many people dislike
> this if it means less questions, so probably not a good idea.
>   + Requiring applicants to apply late rather than soon...
As I pointed earlier in this thread, this is mostly responsability of the
advocate. DDs should not advocate people until they have shown some dedication,
good skills, motivation, etc.


> - wait2/3 could be merged by removing the duplicate work of both FD and DAM
>   reviewing applications. Only one body should do it (e.g. DAM, and if wanted
>   FD members joining it). That will remove wait2, and if more people joins
>   DAM, reduce wait3.
> 
Better guidelines to AM on how to do the AM report and send this direclty to
DAM, so we do not need the "check for completeness" step. 
Some guidelines in what am should check together with some freedom for the AM
in how to check this would be interesting.

Ana


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Charles Plessy]

Le Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:17:15PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
> 
> I was wondering whether we could, for instance, sign with different
> keys a NEW upload to notify FTP masters about the number of people
> which reviewed a given package to give you "hints" (of course
> according to the reputation of the signers in term of copyright review
> abilities). There might be simpler ways though.

Hi Stefano,

I propose to use the ITP bug for this. This would make the reviews public, and
could allow post-upload reviews. This way, there are less reviews when the
queue is short, and more reviews when the queue is long, which sounds like a
nice self-regulated system to my biologists ears.

In addition, it can help to have outsider reviews, which may be less biased
than team co-members. For instance after uploading a package to NEW, a
developer could review the two packges above his. This introduces randomness
and again some self-regulation, since the developers who use the system also
have to contribute to it.

To answer to Neil's earlier question, after such a system is established and is
successful, it can either be used to facilitate the recruitment of new members
of the ‘FTP assitant’ team, or as a seed to replace the existing system.


Have a nice day,

-- 
Charles Plessy
http://wiki.debian.org/CopyrightReview


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Peter Palfrader]

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:

> Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.

Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
checking the copyright file.

-- 
   |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
  Peter Palfrader  | : :' :  The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'  Operating System
   |   `-http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Faidon Liambotis]

Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11790 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> 
>>> In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in
>>> rare situations.  That never seemed like a difficult wait to me.
>> Ack. Same for adding debug packages and similar things like soname bumps.
> 
> Those are all simple additions of binary packages, and yes, NEW does
> handle them special. They get sorted in front of all the rest, so they
> are processed early.
I don't understand, why pass them through NEW anyway?
Why check that specific set ("old packages that introduce new binaries")
for incomplete debian/copyright?

Either
  a) there's no point for ftp-masters to check those or
  b) ftp-masters should regularly check a random set of old packages
each month, whether they had new binaries or not.

i.e. there are tons of packages that had major upstream
versions/copyright additions without passing through NEW and there are
tons of packages that frequently pass through NEW without any copyright
changes whatsoever.

Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.

Regards,
Faidon


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM queues processing

[Peter Palfrader]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

> On 25/06/09 at 22:37 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > [...]
> > - DAM reviews the application
> >   (wait4)
> > - DAM creates the account
> > - Key added to the keyring
> > - Shell access to developer machines
> > 
> > [...]
> > 
> > - I don't know why there is wait4. I guess it's because DAM members process
> >   people in batches, but IMHO if you have already reviewed an application 
> > and
> >   accepted it, the account should be immediately created? Is there a (good)
> >   reason for this delay?
> > 
> > - I have no idea whether the keyring and machine access stuff take another 
> > big
> > delay.
> 
> wait4 used to be a big problem in the past, because the person managing
> the keyring and creating the accounts was not responsive enough.
> 
> It was solved a year or so ago by splitting the tasks differently. DAM
> now reviews the application, and submits RT tickets for the keyring
> addition and the account creation. Those tickets are processed by DSA
> (for the account) and keyring-maint (for the keyring), and both of those
> teams are responsive currently.
> 
> (the above is my perception of how things work, so I might be wrong, but
> it's not properly documented anywhere anyway.)

Correct.  There is no 'DAM creates the account' step.  If you want to
have a step there it's 'DAM sends request to keyring-maint/DSA', but I
suppose that's identical to "finishes review with a positive result".

-- 
   |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
  Peter Palfrader  | : :' :  The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'  Operating System
   |   `-http://www.debian.org/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Nothing at all blocks you from asking for reviews from other
> maintainers. Do it, PLEASE DO IT. The more people that do it, the
> less the rejects we have to do in NEW, the less the size of NEW. You
> do not need to redefine anything for it to happen.
> 
> You know, there is one set of packages that *usually* passes NEW
> pretty fast? Thats because they do something similar to that. They
> (usually, even they have exceptions, but pretty rare) have damn good
> copyright files. (For some reason those packages end in -perl. Must
> be some policy thing i suspect).

That's really interesting to know.

What I don't get from your text is: are you aware of the extra reviews
on a per-package basis, or you just noticed that tose packages are
usually OK and then discovered that the reasons are extra reviews?

I was wondering whether we could, for instance, sign with different
keys a NEW upload to notify FTP masters about the number of people
which reviewed a given package to give you "hints" (of course
according to the reputation of the signers in term of copyright review
abilities). There might be simpler ways though.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Stop whining, volunteer to do the work. ftpmaster did ask a *lot* of
> times for volunteers to help with that. What we got have been a handful
> of people only. Some dropped out due to lack of knowledge, most to lack
> of time. As of now we only have *one* left doing ftptrainee. (having
> good chances of getting ftpteam sometime soon if it continues like it).
> 
> We *happily* accept everyone as trainee that does not get a NO from the
> existing team[1] and let them do trainee work. Have 5 til 10 hours a
> week? Can deal with the points written down in [2]? Mail us.

Heya, thanks for your answer.

That you have repeatedly called for help is certainly true and has all
merits. FWIW, I remember having pointed that out myself on list at an
iteration of the "NEW queue lamentation" shortly after your first call
for help.

Giving how much time has passed since your first call for help
however, I think it's time to ask ourselves *why* not enough people
did apply. Read on.

> [1] There are always people one can not or will not work with. AFAIR we
> denied (only) 2 or 3 people at all until now.

Full ACK on your position on this, you (as in "FTP masters") have the
right to choose who you want to work with and I don't even think you
are too picky.

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 08:58:47AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> I think that the lack of manpower shows that you place the bar too
> high. You are looking for full members of the FTPmaster team, which
> creates some needs for programming skills. One does not need to
> modify the source of dak to accept a reject a package?

This, however, sounds like a good reason for few application. You are
basically requesting people, most likely already involved in Debian
and doing that in their spare time, to have to offer 5-10 additional
hours per week, to know as much programming languages as possible, and
(IIRC) to know the dak code base and be willing to work on it.

I'm sure you've your reasons, but I must confess I don't understand
them, given that the NEW backlog is chronically high. What would you
say of setting up a specific call for help on NEW review requiring
either less time-commitment or less varied skills? At that time, if
manpower *for NEW review* will still be low, your "stop whining, help
out" argument would really be unbeatable.

Cheers.

PS I'm also a bit saddened of not having seen in this thread mentioned
   that less then a month ago NEW queue was *empty* and IME processed
   daily, at least for a while. That was amazing, and kudos to FTP
   masters for that, too bad the manpower is not enough to keep that
   standard

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DAM queues processing

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 25/06/09 at 22:37 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> [...]
> - DAM reviews the application
>   (wait4)
> - DAM creates the account
> - Key added to the keyring
> - Shell access to developer machines
> 
> [...]
> 
> - I don't know why there is wait4. I guess it's because DAM members process
>   people in batches, but IMHO if you have already reviewed an application and
>   accepted it, the account should be immediately created? Is there a (good)
>   reason for this delay?
> 
> - I have no idea whether the keyring and machine access stuff take another big
> delay.

wait4 used to be a big problem in the past, because the person managing
the keyring and creating the accounts was not responsive enough.

It was solved a year or so ago by splitting the tasks differently. DAM
now reviews the application, and submits RT tickets for the keyring
addition and the account creation. Those tickets are processed by DSA
(for the account) and keyring-maint (for the keyring), and both of those
teams are responsive currently.

(the above is my perception of how things work, so I might be wrong, but
it's not properly documented anywhere anyway.)
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DAM queues processing

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Hi all,

This is how I see the process right now, from the applicant's POV:

- Applicant applies
- DD advocates
  (wait1)
- AM assigned
- Work with the AM (P&P, T&S and whatever is needed)
- AM sends report
  (wait2)
- FD checks the application
  (wait3)
- DAM reviews the application
  (wait4)
- DAM creates the account
- Key added to the keyring
- Shell access to developer machines

This is in the case the applicant is accepted everywhere and becomes a DD, of
course.

So as I see it, wait[1234] are the bigger waiting periods, and reducing them
won't decrease the NM process quality (as some people complained if the number
of questions was reduced).

- Reducing wait1 is complicated. Some possibilities for accelerating this are:
  + Recruiting more AMs
  + Reducing the time an AM spends with the applicant. Many people dislike
this if it means less questions, so probably not a good idea.
  + Requiring applicants to apply late rather than soon...

- wait2/3 could be merged by removing the duplicate work of both FD and DAM
  reviewing applications. Only one body should do it (e.g. DAM, and if wanted
  FD members joining it). That will remove wait2, and if more people joins
  DAM, reduce wait3.

- I don't know why there is wait4. I guess it's because DAM members process
  people in batches, but IMHO if you have already reviewed an application and
  accepted it, the account should be immediately created? Is there a (good)
  reason for this delay?

- I have no idea whether the keyring and machine access stuff take another big
delay.

What do people think?

Best regards,
Emilio



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Joerg Jaspert]

> I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> useful tool.

Correct, noone is forced to use the templates. There are some questions
you *must* have, but thats a handful. All the rest is up to the AM.

> I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction in other
> ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result (you are
> happy that the candidate _does_ know all those things and will
> probably get them right in practice).

Not exactly. You are happy... *and* you know that a person only reading
the maillog (and probably following links you put into your DAM/FD
summary mail) will think the same about the applicant.



-- 
bye, Joerg
 we have release cycles, that's why it takes so long to get a
release out; if we had release race cars, things would go a lot faster


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Mark Brown]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:

> > I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
> > templated questions.  I felt that all I was doing was shooting enormous

> I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
> in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result

In theory.  In practice that wasn't the impression that was given; the
impression that was given was that they really really should be used.
Even if I had carried on it was uncomfortable knowing that there
presence or absence of the templates varied.

> (you are happy that the candidate _does_ know all those things and will
>  probably get them right in practice).

Personally I think it's far more interesting to try to get an idea of
how they'll handle things if they're working on something they've not
looked at before and how they'll handle things when stuff doesn't go
according to plan.  The big lists of questions kind of work against
this.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Ralf Treinen]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:36:15PM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:21:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> > > useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
> > > in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result
> > > (you are happy that the candidate _does_ know all those things and
> > > will probably get them right in practice).
> > 
> > For example, my AM mostly did not use templates for my application.
> > However, doing it that way is quite a bit more work for the AM.
> 
> True, especially given that the AM has to ensure that the applicant
> conforms not only to the standards (s)he desires, but also to the
> expectations of FD and DAM. It's not surprising that people prefer the
> templates, given this situation, plus some extra tasks for the
> applicant.

Yes. When I was an AM (long time ago) I tried to use standard questions
as less as possible, and preferred to discuss with the applicant how (s)he
would handle certain problems, either ones that I had made up, or something
from the packaging problems I had experienced with my own packages. I found
that much more interesting, certainly for me, and I hope also for the
applicant. Until I discovered that the FD-at-that-time went back to the
applicant after I had submitted my report and asked additional questions
from the standard list. I think it was because the DAM-at-that-time wa not
happy with my style. That is when I quit being an AM.

-Ralf.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Kumar Appaiah]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:21:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> > useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
> > in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result
> > (you are happy that the candidate _does_ know all those things and
> > will probably get them right in practice).
> 
> For example, my AM mostly did not use templates for my application.
> However, doing it that way is quite a bit more work for the AM.

True, especially given that the AM has to ensure that the applicant
conforms not only to the standards (s)he desires, but also to the
expectations of FD and DAM. It's not surprising that people prefer the
templates, given this situation, plus some extra tasks for the
applicant.

Kumar
-- 
Kumar Appaiah


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Russ Allbery]

Matthew Johnson  writes:
> On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:

>> I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
>> templated questions.  I felt that all I was doing was shooting
>> enormous reams of paperwork at applicants which I didn't really felt
>> helped with anything.  Dumping these enormous reams of questions on
>> the applicants didn't feel like it was giving any insight into their
>> cluefulness,

> I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
> in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result
> (you are happy that the candidate _does_ know all those things and
> will probably get them right in practice).

For example, my AM mostly did not use templates for my application.
However, doing it that way is quite a bit more work for the AM.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Russ Allbery]

"Giacomo A. Catenazzi"  writes:

> Is it so difficult that a cronjob will call two scripts and merge the
> results in a single mail?

I think it would be inappropriate to send public notices about retiring
maintainers without their explicit permission.  In some cases, they may
be retiring for reasons that they don't want to make public and would
prefer to not draw attention to it, or may not wish to answer questions
or have their retirement show up in searches.

I'm all in favor of thanking people for their contributions, but I don't
want to do so at the cost of their privacy.  It's not uncommon for
projects to make new membership public but keep retirements private for
similar reasons.

Of course, if someone doesn't mind or would like the public
acknowledgement, I'd be all in favor of it.  But I'm not sure if it's
worth the effort to gather that information.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Luk Claes]

Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:35:30AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz  wrote:
>> Mike Hommey wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
 Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
>> these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
>> doesn't register at all with me.
> Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
> congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
> this mail to congratulate them?)
 I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send such mails to -project, if the
 interest is large enough. Does anybody want to come up with a proper 
 wording?
>>> I'd say it would nice to have a mail to -project with a welcome for new
>>> maintainers, a thanks for retiring maintainers, and the new number of
>>> developpers. But that might be much harder to setup.
>>
>> Neither FD nor DAM have anything to do with retiring maintainers. They're
>> removed from the keyring and the account is disabled.
> 
> How come DAM (Debian *Account* Manager) have nothing to do with disabling
> accounts ?

They do, though not if the people affected retire themselves without
prodding. DAM does do WAT runs to see if some accounts are not used
anymore and should get disabled.

Cheers

Luk


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Russ Allbery]

Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:

> FWIW, I consider listing files in DEP5-style an advantage in complex
> packages because it helps out in checking for the completeness of your
> license/copyright review. Yes, it is more work, but you gain that you
> can check whether a given source file has been forgotten.

For every large package that I've written a DEP5-style copyright file
for, I've ended up using a catch-all wildcard for the most common
license term and then only listed exceptions.  This means that listing
the files provides no real benefit in checking whether one was
forgotten, unless I'm missing some neat trick.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Russ Allbery]

Steve Langasek  writes:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> I think, and I believe the ftpmasters would agree, that they will
>> enforce project consensus provided that it doesn't strike them as
>> legally dangerous or otherwise seriously problematic.  I would rather
>> have a consensus than a dictated policy.  More people involved means
>> more insight into the challenges of different types of packages.
>
> OTOH, relying on consensus instead of a documented policy means
> practices will tend to drift over time due to our collective
> fallibility in remembering why things were done the way they were.

Well, yes, we should reach a consensus and then write it down and not
change it without a new consensus process.  :)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Adam D. Barratt]

On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:11 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 25/06/09 at 17:45 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
> > > sure that they would be perfectly ready to be a DD by the end of the NM
> > > process (i.e a year and a half later, basically), and that they would be
> > > good NM applicants (modulo the usual delays and motivation problems). 
> > 
> > You considered people ready to start NM while the project did not (i.e.
> > they were not ready by the time they applied, as required by the
> > project).
> 
> Let's look at what the documentation says.
> on nmadvocate.php, it is said:
>   Please advocate an applicant only if you are sure that he or she is
>   prepared and capable to become a Debian Developer.
> it's "become", not "be".

I've always read that as using a different sense of "become" - to assume
the role of being a DD, rather than to develop over time in to a DD.
YMM - and apparently does - V.

Adam


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Creating an operating system

[Don Armstrong]

On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:13:55PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > 1. There is precisely one mail (ITP bug from November) from 2007 in
> >the lists.d.o archive and he was advocated in January 2008.
> 
> I think it would be nice to have [...] replies to bug reports
> available

These are already available for the most part[1]; see
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?correspondent=don%40debian.org


Don Armstrong

1: Some archived bugs are missing; I haven't fixed this yet.
-- 
You could say to the Universe this is not /fair/. And the Universe
would say: Oh it isn't? Sorry.
 -- Terry Pratchett _Soul Music_ p357

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 25/06/09 at 17:45 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
> > sure that they would be perfectly ready to be a DD by the end of the NM
> > process (i.e a year and a half later, basically), and that they would be
> > good NM applicants (modulo the usual delays and motivation problems). 
> 
> You considered people ready to start NM while the project did not (i.e.
> they were not ready by the time they applied, as required by the
> project).

Let's look at what the documentation says.
on nmadvocate.php, it is said:
  Please advocate an applicant only if you are sure that he or she is
  prepared and capable to become a Debian Developer.
it's "become", not "be".
But then, on the guidelines page
(http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-advocate.en.html), it is said:
"http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-advocate.en.html";

Also, the advocation email asks the following questions:
  Why do you advocate this person? (please provide a 5-10 line summary).
  How have they contributed to Debian already?
  What do they intend to do for Debian in the future?
  How do they interact with others, such as users and other developers?

So it doesn't ask anything directly about the capacity of the applicant
to be a DD.

If the consensus is really that people should be ready to *be* DDs the
day they are advocated, I think that those various documents should be
clarified.
Also, public advocacy (as in DM) might help to improve the situation,
since it would allow others to say "uh, I'm not quite sure he should
enter NM as soon as this", and would also encourage advocates to send
high-quality advocation emails.

> Just two people is really a bad set to draw any conclusions from. I
> would appreciate if you would acknowledge that advocating people early
> will be a problem for the NM process and for Debian in general in the
> long term, and should not be done.
> 
> Basically, you're putting yourself above those other DDs who are being
> ignored by Front-Desk for early advocating on the premise that your
> judgement would be perfect.

No, you are putting myself under the other DDs because I said that I
advocated two applicants that I didn't consider ready to be a DD the
next day, only ready to become a DD.  Apparently, so far my judgement
has been correct.

Since you take this personal, let's look at your advocations. Of course,
nobody is going to complain about Cyril Brulebois. On the other
hand, Daniel Leidert was advocated by you on 2008-09-22, got an AM on
2009-01-23, passed the ID check on 2009-01-25, and then didn't complete
P&P or T&S, as recorded on [1] (he is currently on hold). One could
draw the conclusion that you advocated him a bit early, since apparently
he wasn't ready to complete the NM process quickly.
[1] https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=daniel.leidert%40wgdd.de

However, it would be more reasonable to acknowledge that most DDs (you
and I included) just advocate people when they are prepared to go
through NM and very likely to succeed. But then, things happen, and
sometimes the NM process can take a long time even for very good
candidates (Cyril's took 22 months), because of bored/frustrated
applicants, or busy AMs/FDs/DAMs.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Michael Banck]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
> sure that they would be perfectly ready to be a DD by the end of the NM
> process (i.e a year and a half later, basically), and that they would be
> good NM applicants (modulo the usual delays and motivation problems). 

You considered people ready to start NM while the project did not (i.e.
they were not ready by the time they applied, as required by the
project).

Just two people is really a bad set to draw any conclusions from. I
would appreciate if you would acknowledge that advocating people early
will be a problem for the NM process and for Debian in general in the
long term, and should not be done.

Basically, you're putting yourself above those other DDs who are being
ignored by Front-Desk for early advocating on the premise that your
judgement would be perfect.


Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[George Danchev]

> On Tue Jun 23 11:30, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >  - the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
> >AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates, to verify
> > that the applicant has some knowledge about different aspects of Debian
> > packaging. Then the AM would ask for comments about the applicant from
> > other DDs, like it is already being done for DM. That would make the AM
> > report a lot shorter to read, and spread the load on all DDs, that would
> > have to write recommandation emails about the applicant (including links
> > to work the applicant has done). It would also help avoid
> > socially-problematic applicants, because it would be a de-facto
> > requirement to work with several other DDs before becoming a DD.
>
> I really don't think this is a good idea. In general most of the delays
> are not on the part of the AM. I would like to see that area be reformed
> and I agree with the people who would think it should be a check, not
> teaching. Referrals from other DDs, experience as a DM, evidence of good
> contribution to debian; all of these things can be used to judge a
> candidate's suitability, but I would see this as an opportunity to
> increase our quality control in reform, not decrease it.

It would be very nice if the referrals from multiple DD and evidence of good 
contribution to Debian are performed (long) before the advocacy act takes 
place. The more conservative advocacy approach we take, the more successful 
NM-process would be.

-- 
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: New Debian Developers in first half of 2009

[Julien Cristau]

Some new developers were missing from the list:

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 16:47:27 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:

> This is the last mail in a short series providing an overview of people
> who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
> project on this list before.
> 
> Because this was some time ago, I'm not including the short introductions
> normally found in these mails. Instead there is a link to each applicant's
> AM report. If you're interested in what an applicant had to say about
> him/herself way back when (s)he started his/her NM procedure, just follow
> that link.
> 
> Developers included in this overview are welcome to reply to this mail
> with a more up-to-date introduction.
> 
> On behalf of the project, a belated but still warm welcome to the following
> developers:
> 
January
---
Martin Meredith (mez)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2008/10/msg00030.html
Rene Mayorga (rmayorga)
No AM report found

April
-
Ludovico Gardenghi (garden)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2008/10/msg00027.html

May
---
Samuel Thibault (sthibault)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2009/03/msg00076.html
Michael Prokop (mika)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2009/01/msg00023.html
Sebastian Harl (tokkee)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2009/05/msg00023.html
Daniel Gillmor (dkg)
http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2009/04/msg00036.html

Welcome to Debian!

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: New Debian Developers in 2008

[Frans Pop]

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> This is the second mail in a short series providing an overview of
> people who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been
> welcomed to the project on this list before.

I just see I missed Barry deFreese in this overview.

Welcome!

September
-
Barry deFreese (bdefreese)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/87r67yfg2q@pindar.marcbrockschmidt.de


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

New Debian Developers in first half of 2009

[Frans Pop]

This is the last mail in a short series providing an overview of people
who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
project on this list before.

Because this was some time ago, I'm not including the short introductions
normally found in these mails. Instead there is a link to each applicant's
AM report. If you're interested in what an applicant had to say about
him/herself way back when (s)he started his/her NM procedure, just follow
that link.

Developers included in this overview are welcome to reply to this mail
with a more up-to-date introduction.

On behalf of the project, a belated but still warm welcome to the following
developers:

January
---
Michael Casadevall (mcasadevall)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20081019161720.gl14...@paranoidfreak.co.uk
Arthur Loiret (aloiret)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080602082848.ge10...@artemis.madism.org
Jelmer Vernooij (jelmer)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/4908363b.3030...@bzed.de

April
-
Ian Beckwith (ianb)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/200901282059.42965.steffen.joe...@skolelinux.de
LI Daobing (lidaobing)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20081225123125.gb28...@debian
Evgeni Golov (evgeni)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20090201150424.ge19...@debian.org
Carsten Hey (carsten)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/200812311143.57784.steffen.joe...@skolelinux.de
Xavier Lüthi (xluthi)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/200811280915.04878.th...@debian.org
Patrick Matthäi (pmatthaei)
   No AM report found
Xavier Oswald (xoswald)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20081218011424.ga18...@piperka.net

Cheers,
FJP


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Matthew Johnson]

On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:12PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> 
> > The NM process should neither be pain for the NM nor for the AM. If it is 
> > I'm
> > happy to hear the facts why it is pain, instead of useless babbling.
> 
> I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
> templated questions.  I felt that all I was doing was shooting enormous
> reams of paperwork at applicants which I didn't really felt helped with
> anything.  Dumping these enormous reams of questions on the applicants
> didn't feel like it was giving any insight into their cluefulness,
   
I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result
(you are happy that the candidate _does_ know all those things and will
 probably get them right in practice).

Matt
   
-- 
Matthew Johnson


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

New Debian Developers in 2008

[Frans Pop]

This is the second mail in a short series providing an overview of people
who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
project on this list before.

Because this was all quite long ago, I'm not including the short
introductions normally found in these mails. Instead there is a link
to each applicant's AM report. If you're interested in what an applicant
had to say about him/herself way back when (s)he started his/her NM
procedure, just follow that link.

Developers included in this overview are welcome to reply to this mail
with a more up-to-date introduction.

On behalf of the project, a belated but still warm welcome to the following
developers:

April
-
Kumar Appaiah (akumar)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/47741239.9010...@debian.org
Vincent Bernat (bernat)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/200803312142.58740.th...@debian.org
Cyril Brulebois (kibi)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20071112230051.ge2...@df7cb.de
Cameron Dale (camrdale)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20071118123353.gg10...@df7cb.de
George Danchev (danchev)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20071110153523.gc4...@df7cb.de
Martín Ferrari (tincho)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20071226203352.ga4...@pryan.sytes.net
Aurélien GÉRÔME (ag)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20071228194415.gb11...@solar.ftbfs.de
Kevin Glynn (keving)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070316220554.gb28...@olympe.madism.org
Gregor Herrmann (gregoa)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20071128213352.gb9...@country.grep.be
Magnus Holmgren (holmgren)
   No AM report found
Filipe Lautert (filipe)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080202190349.gy2...@df7cb.de
Gonéri Le Bouder (goneri)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080405230703.ga28...@artemis.corp
Simon McVittie (smcv)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080302174428.gq22...@quadriga.konqueror.de
Mike O'Connor (stew)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/47618729.1020...@beamnet.de
Charles Plessy (plessy)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20071106174427.gh13...@df7cb.de
Meike Reichle (meike)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080330150314.gu23...@mails.so.argh.org
Miriam Ruiz (mirian)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20071118152533.gp10...@df7cb.de
Jorge Salamero Sanz (bencer)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/200712281333.27345.th...@debian.org
Tobias Toedter (toddy)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20071109234018.go17...@df7cb.de

May
---
Maximiliano Curia (maxy)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/873apgjjg8@pindar.marcbrockschmidt.de
Dmitry Oboukhov (unera)
   http://lists.debian.org/200712031850.57859.wh...@debian.org

August
--
Bruno Kleinert (fuddl)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/200805032230.40351.wh...@debian.org
Kartik Mistry (kartik)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080427091024.ga6...@diwi.org

September
-
Already welcomed in a mail from Wouter Verhelst [1]:
- Laurent Bigonville (bigon)
- Gregory Colpart (reg)
- Timo Jyrinki (timo)
- Adriaan Peeters (apeeters)
- Soeren Sonnenburg (sonne)

Tobias Grimm (etobi)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080712155506.ga9...@xanadu.blop.info
Chris Lamb (lamby)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/48864f9e.4010...@beamnet.de
Manuel Prinz (manuel)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/200808042142.38522.th...@debian.org
Patrick Schoenfeld (schoenfeld)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/1217975697.5089.59.ca...@chianamo
Sandro Tosi (morph)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/485ee797.6050...@debian.org
Jan Wagner (waja)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080528083515.gb19...@unicauca.edu.co

October
---
Adam Barratt (adsb)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080924144830.ga3...@enricozini.org
Julian Andres Klode (jak)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/48c3c802.6090...@bzed.de
Jonny Lamb (jonny)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080917134559.ga6...@enricozini.org
Joachim Reichel (reichel)
   No AM report found
Bradley Smith (brad-smith)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080924210156.gb7...@enricozini.org
Behan Webster (behanw)
   No introduction in AM report
Giridhar Appaji Nag Y (appaji)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20080826031348.ge6...@isafjordur.dyndns.org

Cheers,
FJP

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/09/msg00040.html


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

New Debian Developers in 2007

[Frans Pop]

This is the first mail in a short series providing an overview of people
who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
project on this list before.
The overview starts after the last "New Maintainers" mail sent by Mohammed
Adnène Trojette in February 2007 [1].

Because this was all quite long ago, I'm not including the short
introductions normally found in these mails. Instead there is a link
to each applicant's AM report. If you're interested in what an applicant
had to say about him/herself way back when (s)he started his/her NM
procedure, just follow that link.

Developers included in this overview are welcome to reply to this mail
with a more up-to-date introduction.

On behalf of the project, a belated but still warm welcome to the following
developers:

February

Romain Beauxis (toots)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20060614184406.gk5...@df7cb.de
Philipp Hug (hug)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20060802164229.gh10...@frigg.ftbfs.de

March
-
Niv Altivanik (xaiki)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20060813053633.gc5...@wuertele.net
Stuart Anderson (anderson)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20061129180801.ga8...@deprecation.cyrius.com
Nacho Barrientos Arias (nacho)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/1153254763.2559.309.ca...@ascendit.sermisy.org
Mirco Bauer (meebey)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/200608191539.18634.is...@debian.org
Jérémy Bobbio (lunar)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20061030194245.gt10...@df7cb.de
Robert Edmonds (edmonds)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20060907232235.gf26...@df7cb.de
Vincent Fourmond (fourmond)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20061029213735.ga5...@enc.com.au
Stefan Fritsch (sf)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20060920191537.gb32...@formorer.de
Thomas Girard (tgg)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/2006092717.gg2...@df7cb.de
Nico Golde (nion)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/871x0juzxw@nahar.marcbrockschmidt.de
Mark Hymers (mhy)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/452f64c2.10...@debian.org
Damyan Ivanov (dmn)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/200701022029.57533.is...@debian.org
Maurizio Lemmo (tannoiser)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20050620071238.ga26...@enc.com.au
Holger Levsen (holger)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070118031321.ga4...@azure.humbug.org.au
Bart Martens (bartm)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20061015185551.gb19...@formorer.de
Piotr Ożarowski (piotr)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20060821124816.gb14...@country.grep.be
José Luis Redrejo Rodríguez (jredrejo)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20060806191138.ga13...@wuertele.net
Peter Rockai (mornfall)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20051007005328.gb22...@marvin.casa
Mohammed Sameer (msameer)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/873b6nizgx@pindar.marcbrockschmidt.de
Roberto Sanchez (roberto)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20060920195612.gb1...@formorer.de
Eike Sauer (eike)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20061029134045.gl3...@df7cb.de
Christine Spang (christine)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070131051450.gz10...@debianrules.debiancolombia.org
Damián Viano (des)
   AM report not found
maximilian attems (maks)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20060920193829.gc17...@df7cb.de
Michal Čihař (nijel)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20061206122305.gg2...@df7cb.de

June

Ramakrishnan Muthukrishnan (rkrishnan)
   No introduction in AM report

August
--
Luciano Bello (luciano)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070306054945.gb19...@formorer.de
Luca Capello (gismo)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070114174620.ga17...@wuertele.net
Pierre Chifflier (pollux)
   AM report not found
Arnaud Cornet (acornet)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/e1hevzy-0001ib...@binder
Kevin Coyner (kcoyner)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070224164905.ga25...@cordelia.zoetekouw.net
Øystein Gisnås (shaka)
   AM report not found
Brice Goglin (bgoglin)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070116135344.ga13...@df7cb.de
Sergei Golovan (sgolovan)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070115173340.gi10...@df7cb.de
Mario Iseli (mario)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070107201904.ge15...@formorer.de
Jan Lübbe (jluebbe)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070116115708.gx3...@df7cb.de
Steffen Möller (moeller)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070115060005.gb2...@formorer.de
Kapil Hari Paranjape (kapil)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070114174947.gc17...@wuertele.net
Peter Samuelson (peters)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20060920214258.gf17...@df7cb.de
John Wright (jsw)
   
http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20070107142650.ga29...@cordelia.zoetekouw.net

December

Regis Boudin (regis)
   http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/87bqd0ir9x@vorlon.ganneff.de
Fathi Boudra (fabo)
   http://lists.debi

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Mark Brown]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:12PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:

> The NM process should neither be pain for the NM nor for the AM. If it is I'm
> happy to hear the facts why it is pain, instead of useless babbling.

I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
templated questions.  I felt that all I was doing was shooting enormous
reams of paperwork at applicants which I didn't really felt helped with
anything.  Dumping these enormous reams of questions on the applicants
didn't feel like it was giving any insight into their cluefulness, it
felt like it was assessing their ability to pass exams and meaning that
if someone struggled the whole thing turned into a mentoring process
rather than an assessment process.  If I was going to mentor someone I
probably wouldn't be doing it with this sort of exam style process but
with something a bit softer.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 25/06/09 at 12:29 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:58:22PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 23/06/09 at 22:35 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> > > > I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> > > > that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
> > > > advocated them for DM).
> > > 
> > > Thank you for adding to other people's workload sifting through
> > > applicants who aren't yet ready.
> > 
> > Who did I advocate who wasn't ready?
> 
> You said so yourself above.

No.

I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
sure that they would be perfectly ready to be a DD by the end of the NM
process (i.e a year and a half later, basically), and that they would be
good NM applicants (modulo the usual delays and motivation problems). In
the same time, I wouldn't have advocated them immediately for DM,
because they could still use some reviewing for a while. That's the
difference between potential and skills, I think.

Now, I checked, and none of the people I advocated (only 2 of them, but
the above applied to both of them, I think) were put on hold before
being assigned an AM. So apparently front desk agrees with my view, and
maybe it's just that I'm having too high standards for DM.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Michael Banck]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:58:22PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 22:35 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> > > I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> > > that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
> > > advocated them for DM).
> > 
> > Thank you for adding to other people's workload sifting through
> > applicants who aren't yet ready.
> 
> Who did I advocate who wasn't ready?

You said so yourself above.


Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Michael Banck]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> New maintainers usually write info about themselves during a first part of
> working with AM, and this info is also included in the AM report.

Yeah, but that might be outdated by the time they actually become
developers; when I was an AM I asked the NMs to update their initial
self-introduction for the public AM report.  They could do the same
thing after getting their account.


Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: Creating an operating system

[Michael Banck]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:13:55PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> 1. There is precisely one mail (ITP bug from November) from 2007 in
>the lists.d.o archive and he was advocated in January 2008.

I think it would be nice to have svn.d.o/git.d.o commits and replies to
bug reports available as well in order to evaluate candidates; probably
this should be kept DD-only for privacy reasons.


Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Michael Banck]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:59AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> In the former case FTP masters are wasting their time, in the latter
> case their role is indeed useful to "defend" our mirror tenants, but
> then copyright reviews must be *intensified*.

I would prefer a more real-time mirroring of the queue to a project
machine (I don't really know the current lag, I have to admit), and
making the NEW queue accessible to developers there. (and possibly
adding to the DMUP that disclosing NEW content is a DMUP violation)

Is there anything I am missing why (opening the NEW queue to developers)
is not possible?


Michael


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
> used to be sent out periodically

To cut this discussion short, I hereby volunteer to send out the "New 
Maintainer" overviews. I'll probably rename them to "New Debian 
Developer" to avoid confusion with DMs.

I'll subscribe to d-newmaint, but with a filter to only keep AM reports 
and the weekly NM reports in which new DDs are listed.

Through that it should be a bit simpler to find the information I need.

Expect to see mails announcing people who've already been DDs for ages 
soon :-)

Cheers,
FJP


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 25/06/09 at 11:24 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin 
>  wrote:
> > Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > >>> No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're 
> > >>> interested,
> > >>> that's why the AM report is posted there. Definitely I'm not going to 
> > >>> ask our
> > >>> AMs to do such additional work.
> > >> Why not let the new maintainers introduce themselves, then ?
> > > 
> > > That sounds a very sensible idea, yes.
> > > 
> > New maintainers usually write info about themselves during a first part of
> > working with AM, and this info is also included in the AM report.
> 
> I do know that, as it was part of my NM, but I'm not sure I'd write the
> same thing as an intro sent to debian-project.

Also, after one or two years in NM, you might have some new things to
say about you, and your interests in Debian might change, so an updated
introduction would be interesting, indeed.
-- 
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lu...@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lu...@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Mike Hommey]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin 
 wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >>> No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're interested,
> >>> that's why the AM report is posted there. Definitely I'm not going to ask 
> >>> our
> >>> AMs to do such additional work.
> >> Why not let the new maintainers introduce themselves, then ?
> > 
> > That sounds a very sensible idea, yes.
> > 
> New maintainers usually write info about themselves during a first part of
> working with AM, and this info is also included in the AM report.

I do know that, as it was part of my NM, but I'm not sure I'd write the
same thing as an intro sent to debian-project.

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15:35AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> I'd include their short biography (a few lines) that is sent to -newmaint.
> 
> The whole point of this exercise is that the short biography cannot be
> automated, so it takes too much time from FD to compose such mails...

Let's make it automated then? Just put a box in https://nm.debian.org/newnm.php
asking for a short biography (you can even put a word count limit) and saying
that it will be published in public mailing lists. Then just hope that people
introduce nice bios :)

But in the meantime I'm all in favour of saying who have become new DDs.

Emilio



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15:35AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >>> Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
> >>> congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
> >>> this mail to congratulate them?)
> >> I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send such mails to -project,
> >> if the interest is large enough. Does anybody want to come up with a
> >> proper wording?
> > 
> > My 0.02€:
> > 
> > « The Debian project is happy to announce that the following
> >   applicants, from the New Maintainer queue, have just become official
> >   Debian Developers:
> > 
> >   - foo
> >   - bar
> 
> I'd include their short biography (a few lines) that is sent to -newmaint.

The whole point of this exercise is that the short biography cannot be
automated, so it takes too much time from FD to compose such mails...

-- 
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.
  http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:59AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>In the former case FTP masters are wasting their time, in the latter
>case their role is indeed useful to "defend" our mirror tenants, but
>then copyright reviews must be *intensified*.
>
>Have we ever asked SPI lawyers about who is legally responsible for
>archive content?
>(Cc-ing leader, if we haven't, I'm asking him to do that.)

AFAICS we've always taken the view that the ftpmaster team are
responsible for the legality of the archive. I don't know if there was
ever any strict legal advice behind that view. I can ask if you want,
but we already have 2 questions in the pipeline with lawyers through
SPI so it may take a while to get a response.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"Because heaters aren't purple!" -- Catherine Pitt


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Mike Hommey]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:35:30AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz  wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >> Don Armstrong wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>  Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
>  these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
>  doesn't register at all with me.
> >>> Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
> >>> congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
> >>> this mail to congratulate them?)
> >> I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send such mails to -project, if the
> >> interest is large enough. Does anybody want to come up with a proper 
> >> wording?
> > 
> > I'd say it would nice to have a mail to -project with a welcome for new
> > maintainers, a thanks for retiring maintainers, and the new number of
> > developpers. But that might be much harder to setup.
> 
> 
> Neither FD nor DAM have anything to do with retiring maintainers. They're
> removed from the keyring and the account is disabled.

How come DAM (Debian *Account* Manager) have nothing to do with disabling
accounts ?

Mike


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:00:59PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Frans Pop  wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least 
> > send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the 
> > project during the past x months?
> 
> I think the AM could provide a summary for that mail, after all, the
> AM should know the applicant enough to be able to write that up,
> right?

They already do. The overview mail is composed of the bio summaries that
are part of the AM report.

However, I still have to figure out who was accepted since the last such
mail was sent out, where the AM report is, copy the right section from
that AM report, paste it into the mail I'm composing, review it to make
sure it contains only the right information (rather than any superfluous
information that was part of the AM report but has no business being in
the overview mail), and making sure the markup is similar across all the
mails.

Doing this easily took over an hour when I did this, which IMO is too
much for a comparatively small benefit. After all, in that hour I could
also have reviewed an AM report, which is much more productive.

-- 
The biometric identification system at the gates of the CIA headquarters
works because there's a guard with a large gun making sure no one is
trying to fool the system.
  http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/01/biometrics.html


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Emilio Pozuelo Monfort]

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
>>> congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
>>> this mail to congratulate them?)
>> I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send such mails to -project,
>> if the interest is large enough. Does anybody want to come up with a
>> proper wording?
> 
> My 0.02€:
> 
> « The Debian project is happy to announce that the following
>   applicants, from the New Maintainer queue, have just become official
>   Debian Developers:
> 
>   - foo
>   - bar

I'd include their short biography (a few lines) that is sent to -newmaint.

+1 for the idea.

Emilio



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Giacomo A. Catenazzi]

Bernd Zeimetz wrote:

Mike Hommey wrote:

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:

Don Armstrong wrote:

On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:

Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
doesn't register at all with me.

Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
this mail to congratulate them?)

I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send such mails to -project, if the
interest is large enough. Does anybody want to come up with a proper wording?

I'd say it would nice to have a mail to -project with a welcome for new
maintainers, a thanks for retiring maintainers, and the new number of
developpers. But that might be much harder to setup.



Neither FD nor DAM have anything to do with retiring maintainers. They're
removed from the keyring and the account is disabled.


Ahh... the old dear bureaucracy!
"It is not my task, so go away and never come back" ;-)

Is it so difficult that a cronjob will call two scripts and merge the results
in a single mail?
So let start with FD/DAM mail and let other to improve later with new
relevant informations.

ciao
cate


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Eugene V. Lyubimkin]

Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're interested,
>>> that's why the AM report is posted there. Definitely I'm not going to ask 
>>> our
>>> AMs to do such additional work.
>> Why not let the new maintainers introduce themselves, then ?
> 
> That sounds a very sensible idea, yes.
> 
New maintainers usually write info about themselves during a first part of
working with AM, and this info is also included in the AM report.

-- 
Eugene V. Lyubimkin aka JackYF, JID: jackyf.devel(maildog)gmail.com
C++/Perl developer, Debian Maintainer



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
> > congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
> > this mail to congratulate them?)
> 
> I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send such mails to -project,
> if the interest is large enough. Does anybody want to come up with a
> proper wording?

My 0.02€:

« The Debian project is happy to announce that the following
  applicants, from the New Maintainer queue, have just become official
  Debian Developers:

  - foo
  - bar

  Congratulations!
  We are looking forward to work with you. »

Cheers.

PS review / nitpicking by native English speakers would be good

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:23:49PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And how do you know that the due diligence Debian shows in seeking
> to avoid distribution of software in violation of copyright isn't
> the *reason* that Debian has avoided being sued?

We don't know, but it's guesswork in both senses.

In that respect, the argument is that doing NEW review only at binary
package change time is good, but not enough. I've recently witnessed
maintainers that totally overlooked the introduction of tons of new
dependencies (not packaged in debian) from one upstream release to the
other and uploaded to the archive; go figure whether they would have
noticed a change in licensing conditions.

So, the real question is whether it is the case or not that FTP
masters are legally responsible for the archive content or not. I've
always been dubious about that. It might be that the responsibles are
the package maintainers or that the responsibles are (unfortunately
for them) mirror administrators.

In the former case FTP masters are wasting their time, in the latter
case their role is indeed useful to "defend" our mirror tenants, but
then copyright reviews must be *intensified*.

Have we ever asked SPI lawyers about who is legally responsible for
archive content?
(Cc-ing leader, if we haven't, I'm asking him to do that.)

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Frans Pop]

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:23:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at
> > least send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been
> > accepted in the project during the past x months?
>
> Not really; and I guess that bit can also be automated. Note, though,
> that this information can already be found on the website.

Of course, but who is going to program themselves to check the website for 
something like that every x months? A mail is so much more convenient and 
IMO it is definitely on-topic for d-project. It's not as if we're going 
to be flooded by such mails :-)

It's also a nice gesture to the new developers.

On Thursday 25 June 2009, Mike Hommey wrote:
> I'd say it would nice to have a mail to -project with a welcome for new
> maintainers, a thanks for retiring maintainers, and the new number of
> developpers. But that might be much harder to setup.

+1

Let's start with the first part as it sounds like that would be a relative 
simple extention of the existing scripts. But the other parts would 
definitely be nice additions.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Bernd Zeimetz]

Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
 Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
 these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
 doesn't register at all with me.
>>> Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
>>> congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
>>> this mail to congratulate them?)
>> I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send such mails to -project, if the
>> interest is large enough. Does anybody want to come up with a proper wording?
> 
> I'd say it would nice to have a mail to -project with a welcome for new
> maintainers, a thanks for retiring maintainers, and the new number of
> developpers. But that might be much harder to setup.


Neither FD nor DAM have anything to do with retiring maintainers. They're
removed from the keyring and the account is disabled.

-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
   ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:23:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The second type, the one I believe Frans is referring to, is sent
> > manually. It takes a lot of work and effort to create it (looking up
> > the required information, copying and pasting the relevant sections
> > from the relevant mails, doing some markup so the mail looks somewhat
> > nice, etc); I tried it once, but decided that the benefit is not worth
> > the amount of work needed to produce it.
> 
> I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least 
> send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the 
> project during the past x months?

Not really; and I guess that bit can also be automated. Note, though,
that this information can already be found on the website.

If there's sufficient interest in doing this (in addition to what's on
the website), I guess I could update the weekly NM Report mail to also
mention the names of the people who were accepted, rather than just a
count.

-- 
Wouter Verhelst, on behalf of the NM Frontdesk

 Home is where you have to wash the dishes.
  -- #debian-devel, Freenode, 2004-09-22


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Steve McIntyre]

On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> 
>> No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're interested,
>> that's why the AM report is posted there. Definitely I'm not going to ask our
>> AMs to do such additional work.
>
>Why not let the new maintainers introduce themselves, then ?

That sounds a very sensible idea, yes.

-- 
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com
"We're the technical experts.  We were hired so that management could
 ignore our recommendations and tell us how to do our jobs."  -- Mike Andrews


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Philipp Kern]

On 2009-06-25, Steve Langasek  wrote:
> Cf. <87ofiygrkx@tacitus.systems> for the explanation of how NEW got the
> way it is (with rationale), as well as
><20010909160205.b8...@azure.humbug.org.au> on debian-private (9 Sep 2001)
> and the debian-private list archives for July 2001 for more information,
> including references to the relevant sections of US export regulations.

Which leaves me wondering why NEW (and to the same extend parts of the morgue)
are not locally world-readable anymore...

To quote James:
|  o Only 'unchecked' is locally world-writeable.  The others are all,
|of course, locally world-readable but only 'install' and 'byhand'
|are publicly visible on http://incoming.debian.org/

And I can't find anything in Anthony's mail to contradict this.

Kind regards,
Philipp Kern


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM queues processing

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 02:37:42PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The FD's responsibility, as a 'New Maintainer Front Desk', is to
> ensure that the new maintainer process runs smoothly, and to take a
> bit of the grunt work off of the DAM. If stuff passes front desk,
> it's assumed that it'll pass DAM too, unless FD fucked up.
> 
> However, the final decision of who gets to be a DD and who doesn't
> is not with FD; instead, that decision lies with the DAM. They have
> to make up their own mind.

I understand very well both this statements. My problem with the
situation they induces is that there seems to be some useless
bureaucracy in that, which I proposed to fix merging somehow the FD &
DAM roles [1].

Let me explain where I see too much bureaucracy. If, as you said,
"passing FD means passing DAM", can't we just skip DAM review if FD
say "OK"? Similarly, if FD says "no, there are still issues", can't we
just avoid passing the file to DAM whose time is precious?

De facto, that would mean delegating the acceptance role to FD; if
people are unease with that, just merge FD into DAM, have a larger DAM
team, with internal role distinctions about who is working on
acceptance new members.

A few concluding notes:

- I know that on paper FD is only in charge to check for the
  "completeness" of a report and not doing a review, but from what
  emerged in this thread by FD members, they de facto do reviews

- given that FD follow more closely applicants than DAM (which only
  notices them at the end of the process), they know better applicants
  and it is easier for them to do also the final review; (current) DAM
  should start from scratch when it receives the applicant file. It
  just sounds as dumb to me

Cheers.

[1] again: I'm not claiming that this will solve _all_ NM problems,
far from that, but I think it is pretty easy and will get rid of
some time wastes.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive
> and that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual
> files is unnecessary if you have all of the licenses accounted for
> (and potentially copyright notices, which are the main topic of
> current disagreement).  I do agree with you that having that written
> down somewhere would be good, though.

(My interpretation is the same.)

FWIW, I consider listing files in DEP5-style an advantage in complex
packages because it helps out in checking for the completeness of your
license/copyright review. Yes, it is more work, but you gain that you
can check whether a given source file has been forgotten.

Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...| ..: | Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Or, more importantly, an actual consistent policy (with rationale) from
> > the ftpmasters to say what they require.

> I think, and I believe the ftpmasters would agree, that they will
> enforce project consensus provided that it doesn't strike them as
> legally dangerous or otherwise seriously problematic.  I would rather
> have a consensus than a dictated policy.  More people involved means
> more insight into the challenges of different types of packages.

OTOH, relying on consensus instead of a documented policy means practices
will tend to drift over time due to our collective fallibility in
remembering why things were done the way they were.

I would argue this has already happened wrt ftpmaster NEW requirements for
debian/copyright.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: DAM and NEW queues processing

[Steve Langasek]

On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:47:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Debian has never been sued for distributing software it didn't have the
> right to distribute in its archive (despite having distributed such
> software in the past), and you are afraid of allowing DDs to download
> the content of the NEW queue?

And how do you know that the due diligence Debian shows in seeking to avoid
distribution of software in violation of copyright isn't the *reason* that
Debian has avoided being sued?  Our good faith efforts to avoid infringing
copyright have the significant effect of limiting punitive damages in a
copyright suit, making it less appealing to would-be suitors.

> Has Debian even ever received a cease and desist letter from a IP
> lawyer?  Under which circumstances? I am bit tired of lawyers being
> mentioned each time the NEW problems are discussed, while it seems,
> based on history, that Debian is relatively safe from legal attacks.

We *do* have legal advise regarding the implications of hosting
ftp-master.debian.org in the US and exporting software from there.  While
the notification requirements for free software are greatly relaxed in
practice today, the law is still in place that would require an export
license when exporting various non-free software (specifically, certain
stuff that's not free enough to include in non-free).  By allowing downloads
of unvetted software from the NEW queue, we would risk not only violating
copyright law, but also US export law.

Cf. <87ofiygrkx@tacitus.systems> for the explanation of how NEW got the
way it is (with rationale), as well as
<20010909160205.b8...@azure.humbug.org.au> on debian-private (9 Sep 2001)
and the debian-private list archives for July 2001 for more information,
including references to the relevant sections of US export regulations.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org