Re: Problems with NM Front Desk
Don Armstrong wrote: On Tue, 06 Jul 2010, Frans Pop wrote: Is it actually OK for FD to "demand" that candidates go through DM before applying for DD, or as part of the NM process? If the FD isn't fairly confident that someone has enough experience in Debian to make occupying an AM's time and taking slotes and time away from more qualified candidates, then yes, they should be strongly suggesting that people aren't ready to become DDs, and thus should spend more time working on Debian, possibly as DMs. The problem I see is the inability of some people to take a hint. An obstinate person will point out that it is not mandatory. Then a long flame war ensues where neither side bothers to take a charitable look at what the other person wrote. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c3423a1.3090...@qnet.com
Re: Debian decides to adopt time-based release freezes
Mark Shuttleworth wrote: .. Instead of saying "there's a bug that was badly handled, so we should never collaborate better on anything", let's look for opportunities to make things better. We have a good opportunity to make a profound change in the way upstreams and distributions engage. A change that will really help the whole free software ecosystem, and many distributions beyond Ubuntu and Debian. Isn't it worth exploring that idea for its full value? Mark Since you used quotation marks, this suggests you are referencing the verbatim words of an individual. I am curious about this quote. Was it a Debian Developer who said this? I find it hard to believe a fellow DD would propose such a shallow view. Your points in this paragraph should enjoy consensus within both the Debian and Ubuntu spheres of influence. A healthy ecosystem will benefit both of us. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: [OT] aggressiveness on our mailing lists.
Luk Claes wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Luk Claes wrote: Manoj Srivastava wrote: .. This is hilarious. Two posts attacking the man -- ad hominem -- and these are the folks talking about being less aggressive. Twisting again are you? Only if you call quoting what you say twisting your words. You put it in a different context to match better what you wanted to bring across, I name that twisting, though you're still free to call that whatever you like. This seems like a stretch to me. Notice that I did the exact same thing by SNIPPING out a part of the message. In my English dictionary, I compared the word "twisting" and the word "emphasis." I think the word "emphasis" is a better match for this situation. This is a concept funny in itself. You ridiculously trying to defend yourself from twisting words while continuing to do it in more subtle ways, sure. As a regular person without Superhuman powers, I must be lacking in my ability to distinguish between all these subtle meanings. Since words actually have definitions, I would expect that quoting them does not change the meanings. I do recognize that sometimes a person will read words and choose what it means even if the dictionary definitions do not match. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Don't you think that there's some sense in listening to what Emilio says, whithout immediately minimizing his arguments, since he has already been at least 4 times more useful to Debian than you were during the last 8 years? - Lucas I did listen. That is why it was obvious to me that he was promoting having less eyes review an application. By your metric, he is "at least 4 times more useful to Debian" but I can choose my own metric. I think quality is more important than quantity (in most instances). If your argument for quantity was the standard, Sven Luther would be honored for all his contributions to our mailing lists. In 2001 I was in the NM queue with Eray and it taught me that at times it is best to mind your own little contribution without pushing to correct the 'flaws in the system.' From the perspective of a person more concerned about their own contributions, it was logically significant that "Lack of people vociferously objecting does not imply consent." It may be useless by your standards, but I will now go back to my silent contribution mode. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Richard Hecker wrote: While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic? No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then wait another month. I don't see the point in it being reviewed twice if FD has no say in the final decision and his only task is to check that everything is complete. In this community, do you really want to suggest we have too many eyes looking for problems? Of course we could keep the status quo, but it seems to me merging DAM and FD would do no harm and a lot of benefit (or if you want it another way, removing the step of FD checking the application after the AM report, and adding more people to the DAM). Cheers, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: In the midst of the huge discussion started at [1], a specific proposal [2] did not appear to have received much counter arguments, namely: merging DAM with FD (both CC-ed). .. Lack of people vociferously objecting does not imply consent. I believe that there is agreement among the teams there is no other need to "decide" anything else. I felt the need to re-raise this topic because I believe it's an easy way to get rid of some bureaucracy and because I have the impression there might be consensus on that. Is that so? Cheers. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/06/msg00024.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/06/msg00056.html While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic? Richard -- 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 wrote: Kęstutis Biliūnas wrote: Say the truth to each loser would be more honestly, I think. One such unfortunate, So you think you are a loser? I don't think so. What I know from your AM is that your progress towards becoming DD and knowing all the things a DD needs to know is a slow but steady one. Your AM is happy with that, so I can't see a problem here. I think he just put it in simplistic terms. I do not think he is a loser. I think he raises a very valid point. We need a way to _gently_ reject candidates that avoids all the negative connotations. Many of these people jump through hoops to contribute to our project. We should show appreciation that they want to make Debian better. But it is a fact of life that NOT everyone will fit in to the Debian project. Some people will produce more problems than accomplishments. It is a honor to work with my fellow developers. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. The NM process has some problems but we can solve them in a way that shows respect for everyone who shares our goal to make Debian better. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Please, everybody, let's try to discuss patches to the DEP, rather than general stuff about communication. (unless you want to reject the whole DEP, but only Richard Hecker seems to want that) In spite of my intention to not comment any further, I just cannot let this claim go unchallenged. You should reread everything I have posted (including my October 2008 emails) before you attempt to put words in my mouth. Again I point out that reality can be different from what you claim. I do not think consensus exists despite all your claims that it does. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 30/05/08 at 01:44 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: .. You failed to find consensus in the thread I referenced in the previous message. ... which led me to thinking of what we could do to improve the current situation while staying consensual. Because I didn't find consensus in the thread you referenced, I should be forbidden to propose anything about NMUs forever? While I admire your desire to improve the current situation, it looks to me like you still have not found consensus. You can claim that it exists, but others see value in contacting an active maintainer before uploading the NMU. In years past, I would route all email through an employment account (I basically lived there anyway and it was the best option to assure timely reception and response ;-). In this environment, it was common to remind people that vacations could last a week or two. It was amazing how often people were inclined to push the panic button because they had waited a few days for a response. DEP1 reminds me of those days. If you eliminate the goal of contacting the maintainer first, you can easily push through the NMU via one of the DELAYED queues. We are left to rehash all those old arguments about how long is too long and why someone needs such a long vacation. Although it may seem like a dirty word to you, I do suspect that these arguments were worked out when the developers reference was first put together. I just do not see the value when some Johnny-come-lately decides that all the decisions need to be reworked. You have already described my comments as an exception. You can still claim consensus as you explain why this rewrite is an improvement. Lack of a further response from me does not indicate that I suddenly agree with you. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 29/05/08 at 17:47 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: .. The DEP's content is different from what was discussed back then (have you read it?). And I think that there's consensus that the NMU rules Yes, I have read it. That is one reason why I stated that I have the same concern expressed last year. proposed in the DEP are reasonable, implement what is already done by some NMUers, and will make life of NMUers easier, allowing NMUs to be done in a more efficient manner. While this may be true, I question how a "more efficient" NMU process will be better than working to improve communication. If the goal is to improve section 5.11 of the Developer's Reference, I think it would be beneficial to strengthen the gains that already have been made. The current language highlights the importance of communication by admonishing a person to contact the maintainer first and act later. Some people will prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the maintainer. They will claim that this was 'done by the book.' As long as the NMUer sends all the information to the BTS, I'm perfectly fine with the NMUer not sending a private email to the maintainer. (and I think that there's consensus about that) You failed to find consensus in the thread I referenced in the previous message. I am all ears if you want to explain where this new "consensus" comes from. The behaviour that Charles Plessy described today might be very efficient at helping others with NMUs. I suspect his comment may be based upon the practice of some NMUers. If your consensus deals with this prospect, the communication improvements should be obvious. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DEP1: Clarifying policies and workflows for Non Maintainer Uploads (NMUs)
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 26/05/08 at 09:55 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
..
I miss one thing in these guidelines: they sort of give you the idea you
can NMU someone's packages off as long as you go by the book, and that
you have the RIGHT to do it no matter what.
I made the following change to the DEP to address this: (wdiff format)
When doing an NMU, you must always send a patch with the differences
between the current package and your NMU to the BTS. If the bug you
are fixing isn't reported yet, you must do that as well.
{+After you upload an NMU, you are responsible for the possible
problems that you might have introduced. You must monitor the package
for a few weeks (subscribing to the package on the PTS is a good
idea).+}
While there are no general rules, it's recommended to upload to the
DELAYED queue with a delay of at least a few days. Here are some
examples that you could use as default values:
I have the same concern about this language as I did when I explained
in October (http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2007/10/msg00229.html)
that a person should follow the usual NMU rules. It may be a case where
agree to disagree, but our developers reference clearly states in section
5.11.1 (http://www.debian.org/doc/developers-reference) to "contact the
developer first, and act later."
I see the same weakness that Henrique listed above. Some people will
prepare a NMU without even sending an email to the maintainer. They
will claim that this was 'done by the book.' I am not oblivious to what
you (http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/10/msg00547.html) may
find "painful" but, I still want to stress that we should strive to improve
communication when we can. You did not find consensus to adopt your
view back then, and I hope you will not use DEP1 to establish your
preference now.
Richard
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: why privacy is mandatory
Eeric Evans wrote: Martin Schulze wrote: [...] On several IRC channels it is a requirement to reveal the realname. [...] If one does not like such rules, they are free to not join such meetings. .. But lets have a look at http://pastebin.ca/885288 again and see how HennaX started the chat when he joined that channel. He asked if he has to reveal private data. A person answered him that he does not have to if he does not want to. Nowhere is said that sociopaths will This looks like confirmation that vorlon was right to mistrust HennaX as a female. What sane person would trust such people? At least you recognize trust as a foundation issue. It has been suggested that you are just a troll. Your example shows that vorlon did not trust HennaX and now you want others to accept your conclusion that vorlon is untrustworthy. Yet you fail to provide a reason why we should trust you. The sane people in the Debian community are not in danger. I can tolerate their ability to handle these issues. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: soc-ctte discussion at DebConf7
Manoj Srivastava wrote: .. I have seen no discussion on how the soc ctte is going to go about ensuring that such cultural differences are noticed, or taken into account in the resolution process; or that any thought has been taken to address cultural diversity in the dispute resolution process. I see no way to legislate that cultural differences are "taken into account." About the only way I see of ensuring that these are considered is by selecting a committee that has a group with diverse backgrounds. Are we planning on taking into account things like cultural differences? Or is the decision going to be that the majority rule (or the dominant culture) be the governing one? I hope the committee will consider these differences before a decision is made. I would propose that open, frank, and honest communication between all the parties will bring such differences to light. An independent objective third party like the committee should be in a good position to recognize such cultural differences. Whether any of the warring parties will accept what the committee recognizes is an entirely different matter ;-) Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Another level of agression ?
Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, May 28, 2007 at 01:03:29PM +0200, Joey Schulze wrote: Sven Luther wrote: After some more pressure on IRC, your commit access has been restored. It is not enough, i want the suspension revoked, since it was a stupid decision, which has achieved nothing except worsen the situation, and was taken contrary to the DAMs procedure, and in a shady and mysterious way. Oh come on Sven! This thread was about the accidential removal of your kernel team commit access. It has been restored since them. The problem is fixed. The wider problem has been there since marsch last year or so, and it was never fixed. And I am beginning to wonder if it ever can be fixed! .. So, what will be done to solve this issue, or should it be left open like a bleeding wound to fester and worsen so much longer ? Isn't it time to solve this in a fair and human way, like it should have been done last year ? And no, you cannot blame Anthony Towns for all the evil this time around. It seems to me that there is plenty of blame to go around. I accept my fair share for everything I have written that has just prolonged the debate. But when a simple accident (removal of access) blows up into a rehash of all the accusations that should have died long ago, it looks like Sven will never let go of this issue. I do not mean to troll, but I do have a serious rhetorical question I would like you to consider. Sven has said "It is not enough." So, what is enough? I do not see total abdication as a viable option. It may take two to argue, but one can rehash previous disagreements endlessly. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Please expulse Frans Pop from debian
On Tue, 2007-04-03 at 22:56 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: .. > When will Debian realise that there should be a way to solve social problems, > and actually try to solve it, instead of trying to censor or silence the most > annoying party ? This is a real question, and once Debian has an answer for > that, it will solve my problem, but also the innumerable flamewars in which i > was not involved which surface regularly, and contribute to the not-fun > ambient of which i am currently made the scapegoat. > Realizing a problem exists does not guarantee a solution will be found. You have been a DD for too long to not understand how volunteers scratch their own itch. Why did you not find a solution? You had the most to gain from it. Instead of finding a solution to a conflict between two individuals, you chose to escalate the problem. Dragging more and more people into it with incessant complaints has obviously not fixed it. I will not minimize the wrongs you suffered, but I fail to see how your conduct is helping the situation. If you try to solve a small problem by creating a bigger problem, it should not surprise you when people focus on the bigger problem. Before you send another knee-jerk response, take some time to think about what other DDs consider to be the bigger problem (going through the expulsion process should provide a clue ;-). Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Expulsion process: Sven Luther - Decision
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 19:27 +, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2007-03-29, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you deny that rejection is an act of hate ? > > I do. > Obviously, I do too! > Rejection is many things that in many cases is not hate. It might be > dislikement, it might be lack of skills or just bad communication. None > of these is what I would consider hate. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Expulsion process: Sven Luther - Decision
On Thu, 2007-03-29 at 07:07 +0200, Sven Luther wrote: .. > I would have gladly accepted any decision, provided it was a fair one, but > this one-sidedness is what caused all of this. > One big problem here is the way you define "fair" in this context. There are many other DDs unwilling to accept your definition. Another good example is the way you talk about others who "hate" you. You are free to selectively use any definitions you see fit. But the fact that many others reject your choice should cause one to pause for thought. By continuously harping on issues that rely on your specific definitions, you isolate yourself from those who might be in a position to help you. After you alienate your fellow DDs, you feign surprise that no one is there to help you. This process has been repeated over and over again. Many have tried to help you and offer advice. When you ignore their advice, is it any wonder you find yourself in this situation? You are STILL a DD with an opportunity to positively contribute to the project. Instead of explaining that you are the one who is right and all of us are wrong, try working on something where consensus exists. When you explain what makes my views wrong, it also causes me to wonder if I was wrong to have any concern for your welfare. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
