Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Anthony Towns wrote: [...] the torch is just taken up by Thomas and Joel and MJ Ray anyway and the accusations of working against the project continue without abate. As far as I can tell, I made no accusations and I dislike you linking my name with them, especially given the nature of your complaints. Do unto others as you would be done unto, please? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Matthew Palmer wrote: Do you believe that the ftpmaster team might be amenable to either of the proposals mooted recently, such as multiple people certifying that the package is OK (like advocates for packages), or a collection of clueful DDs doing these sanity checks on NEW packages? First, I should note this whole thread is ridiculous -- NEW packages in the general case simply aren't a priority worth obsessing over. Yes there's a delay at the moment, yes it's known about, yes it'll be resolved, yes it sucks that it hasn't already been. Anyway, if you've got a collection of clueful DDs doing sanity checks on NEW packages you've got a collection of ftpmasters, either literally or de facto; I don't think there's any point bothering with unofficial ftpmasters. I'm speaking only for myself. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Peter Samuelson wrote: [Matthew Palmer] Do you believe that the ftpmaster team might be amenable to either of the proposals mooted recently, such as multiple people certifying that the package is OK (like advocates for packages), or a collection of clueful DDs doing these sanity checks on NEW packages? The crypto export thing is a potential problem, but it seems to me that it has a pretty straightforward solution: host the NEW queue on a machine outside the US. This causes a problem for DDs uploading inside of the US, as they could (or would) be exporting cryptographic software, instead of the archive itself doing that after properly notifying the BXE et al. [Ah, the joys of export controls...] Don Armstrong -- If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money it values more, it will lose that, too. -- W. Somerset Maugham http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Pierre Habouzit wrote: Le Lun 21 Février 2005 00:16, Matthew Palmer a écrit : NEW would still have to be processed by hand, though -- crypto notifications still need to be sent, and the protection provided by two crap developers working on a package isn't not that much better than one crap developer working on a package. Add to that an override disparity when the maintainer considers other sections and priority useful for the package than the ftpmasters. Regards, Joey -- A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems. Paul Erdös -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Pierre Habouzit wrote: Because there's no guarantee (or even real likelihood) that the two developers whose signatures appear on the package have sufficient Clue to be able to produce quality packages. Pair programming only works when both people are switched on and taking note of their surroundings. The ftpmasters are, in general, senior and clueful DDs, with a good knowledge of the likely high and low points of a package. you're right. though, I think there is even young DD (or even maintainers) that are quite good too ;) You always have exeptions to the rules. Regards, Joey -- A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems. Paul Erdös -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 09:06:36PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: - uploads to NEW need an advocate in addition to the normal signature ... Hmmm. Seems like it could work, but might still have the issue that finding two maintainers who think something is good is not vastly more difficult than finding one; also, many packages are already co-maintained, would you allow co-maints to both sign it? I believe it *is* possible to get multiple signatures with GnuPG (the same way you can encrypt something to multiple keys), but I'd have to go dig through the docs to figure out how to do it. When talking about a more automated NEW queue people said that ftp-master checks package names and splits for sensibility and rejects quite a few of those because they are silly. Having 2 people think about it should reduce that somewhat (not as much as a NEW team though). It's a simple 4 eyes see more than 2 solution. So co-maintained both signig should be ok, it's still 4 eyes, 2 brains, half an IQ :) - a NEW team ... ... 3) Doesn't (as far as I can see offhand) require access to sensitive accounts, key signatures, or software. Thus, someone who processes NEW as a generate recommendations for ftpmaster can do the job without needing much, if any, in the way of privileged access (possibly some issues with crypto, but those should be easily resolveable). You need access to the NEW queue. But if I'm not misinformed any DD can get to the mirror on merkel? If not, an inofficial NEW queue could be setup by someone, uploads to there could be judged and then put into the real queue with a recommendation mail. Whether or not ftp-master would find that usefull or not is another question (and they have to answere that). ... Not that I expect, given how this and past conversations have gone, that they'd particularly want to deal with me, but if a NEW processing group is considered worthwhile, consider me volunteered to put in the time. Maybe the work is suitable revenge for having to read or delete so many of my emails. Maybe you could make contact with ftp-master and ask their opinion. I doubt they would want a non DD running the show. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Goswin von Brederlow wrote: You need access to the NEW queue. But if I'm not misinformed any DD can get to the mirror on merkel? Packages may not be downloaded from the NEW queue due to US crypto regulations (and Debian's approach to fulfilling the resulting requirements); however if your package doesn't contain crypto code, you can put it on people.debian.org or some other website for other people to download/review while it's in the NEW queue. Developer access to the queue is limited by permissions to viewing .changes files and running ls -l; ftpmaster access is limited by policy to checking the correctness of the package with various tools. General access is only trivially more limited than developer access (and is much prettier). See http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Matthew Palmer wrote: AFAIK, we don't notify for every new piece of software in the archive, just those which would fall foul of the export restrictions. That's mistaken -- we automatically notify for all NEW packages, so that we don't have to examine every upload of every package in order to send a notification when crypto is added to an already existing package. Basically our notifications say this package may contain crypto, now or at some future date. NEW processing for new binary packages is manual so that the name choice can be reviewed, and for general sanity checking purposes. It might be nice to do some sanity checking for changes to the copyright file in packages that aren't NEW too, but that's not really feasible at the moment, and new binary package is a fairly good indicator of significant changes that warrant double checking, anyway. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 05:16:39PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: Matthew Palmer wrote: AFAIK, we don't notify for every new piece of software in the archive, just those which would fall foul of the export restrictions. That's mistaken -- we automatically notify for all NEW packages, so that we don't have to examine every upload of every package in order to send a notification when crypto is added to an already existing package. Basically our notifications say this package may contain crypto, now or at some future date. OK, thanks for the correction. I was a bit curious as to how we handled crypto notifications after the initial upload... NEW processing for new binary packages is manual so that the name choice can be reviewed, and for general sanity checking purposes. It might be nice to do some sanity checking for changes to the copyright file in packages that aren't NEW too, but that's not really feasible at the moment, and new binary package is a fairly good indicator of significant changes that warrant double checking, anyway. Do you believe that the ftpmaster team might be amenable to either of the proposals mooted recently, such as multiple people certifying that the package is OK (like advocates for packages), or a collection of clueful DDs doing these sanity checks on NEW packages? - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
[Matthew Palmer] Do you believe that the ftpmaster team might be amenable to either of the proposals mooted recently, such as multiple people certifying that the package is OK (like advocates for packages), or a collection of clueful DDs doing these sanity checks on NEW packages? The crypto export thing is a potential problem, but it seems to me that it has a pretty straightforward solution: host the NEW queue on a machine outside the US. Then it may as well be anon-HTTP-accessible as far as the US government would care. (Of course, there may be other reasons not to take the NEW queue public, like the possibility that something with a non-free license, which doesn't permit that sort of distribution at all, gets that far.) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 09:06:36PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Now, if the reason is because everyone involved in ftp-master has more crucial tasks to do with getting Sarge out the door, that would be one thing; the answer would be Wait if we're expecting that to last a couple of weeks at most, or train an additional person if we expect it to persist (yes, I *know* training someone costs, but it also pays off fairly rapidly, thus the patience-if-it's-short). The NEW queue hasn't been the most expedient for some time now which would indicate this is a long term problem. Unless the reason for the delay is too many people fighting over the decision then more manpower can't hurt, right. With the caveat that it needs to be manpower usefully applied, I would agree. What useful applications are available is one of the questions. Let me repeat two ideas I mentioned before: I also missed these, previously. Which is a pity. They both seem like they could be quite useful, if the problem is the NEW queue is a pain in the arse to deal with and not very rewarding. - uploads to NEW need an advocate in addition to the normal signature The advocates job would be to test the package, check for packaging mistakes, gross bugs, build failures, license, bad name choice when splitting a package. That sort of thing. This would be helpfull in filtering out more bad uploads to NEW. Is that a frequent thing? How much time is wasted on trivial rejections currently? Hmmm. Seems like it could work, but might still have the issue that finding two maintainers who think something is good is not vastly more difficult than finding one; also, many packages are already co-maintained, would you allow co-maints to both sign it? I believe it *is* possible to get multiple signatures with GnuPG (the same way you can encrypt something to multiple keys), but I'd have to go dig through the docs to figure out how to do it. - a NEW team The new team would be an appointed group (not just random DD as for the advocate) of DDs that do all the checking and testing of NEW packages and recommend to ftp-master to accept a package in the end. This would mean the ftp-master would loose some of their duties and only be the implementing tool (with a veto right?). Having a NM team has worked great to NM. Maybe that success could be repeated. This seems like it might be a little easier. Among other things, processing the NEW queue has very different requirements, in many ways, from the rest of the ftpmaster jobs described in the document. 1) Requires a high degree of interaction with other DDs, including things that can frequently go sour, like rejection notices. Often requires patience and tact beyond what may be reasonable to expect of all DDs, or even all ftpmasters. 2) Requires investingating new packages for things like licensing (thus, needing to follow debian-legal to some degree), requires going over the basics of the package structuring (at least, this seems to often be done; I've had first-pass uploads rejected for being split into too many small pieces, even if we don't expect them to catch bugs), etc. Often tedious. 3) Doesn't (as far as I can see offhand) require access to sensitive accounts, key signatures, or software. Thus, someone who processes NEW as a generate recommendations for ftpmaster can do the job without needing much, if any, in the way of privileged access (possibly some issues with crypto, but those should be easily resolveable). I suspect that if this was a good answer, it would require some startup effort (pick one or two folks to learn the basics, get them up to speed, maybe sort out semi-standard forms and checklists of things which need to be answered, and possibly work out some sort of coordination system, though that might be as simply as yell down the hall emails), after which the NEW processors could do most of the training for additional NEW processors. Certainly either of them seems like a worthwhile thing to try, if the problem is need more manpower; the main question is whether an advocate system is really enough to cut down on the difficulty of the task (I have my doubts, but it might cut down on the number of bad/hard-to-check things getting into the queue in the first place... or might not), or whether having more non-privileged manpower to process the queue down to a simpler Looks good, Looks questionable, here's why or Needs to be rejected, here's why (or give them the power to flat-reject something to them, even) is more useful. Not that I expect, given how this and past conversations have gone, that they'd particularly want to deal with me, but if a NEW processing group is considered worthwhile, consider me volunteered to put in the time. Maybe the work is suitable revenge for having to read or delete so many of my emails. -- Joel Aelwyn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 01:20:09PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: So, how do we rectify this situation? 1. use democractic processes to fix this; 2. make their lives hell until they talk or quit; 3. telepathy. These all suck. Democratic processes don't carry any weight of obligation on volunteers (especially under our constitution). The right answer is Make people stop bitching about other people so much, but that involves that Make word again, so it's not really a practical option. To the extent that this reduces to make people go away if they are unwilling to respect their fellow developers, I believe it *is* an option. Convincing people to stop bitching of their own accord is a *better* option, but I think we as a community need to deal honestly with the possibility that some people do not advance the goals of the project with their involvement. (As distinct from people not advancing the goals of the project through their *lack* of involvement, which as has been pointed out repeatedly is everyone's right.) In the short term, the easiest way to deal with this is probably to have somebody else mediate information flow. The DPL is an obvious choice, but a more realistic choice may be to have people working with individual teams and passing information back and forth. Separating the people doing the job from the people providing updates removes the direct criticism flow. Sure, why not? Let's give it a try. I am not an ftpmaster, but through personal conversations I know that: - most processing of the NEW queue has of late been done by a single ftpmaster, who has not been actively doing NEW processing this year. I don't know the reason, and haven't asked; I assume that he has succumbed to real-world time constraints, and that the other ftpmasters are aware of this. - another ftpmaster has been moving house this month, with much of the usual network-related pain and anguish that goes with it. - the ftpmasters are generally aware that there is a manpower problem here, as some consideration has been given to a candidate for augmenting the existing team. I don't know if there is currently a timeline for confirming him as an ftpmaster, or what steps lie between now and final approval, but the ftpmasters have certainly not been sitting idly by waiting to be flamed before taking action. So, does this quench the flames, or fan them? -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Le Lun 21 Février 2005 00:16, Matthew Palmer a écrit : NEW would still have to be processed by hand, though -- crypto notifications still need to be sent, and the protection provided by two crap developers working on a package isn't not that much better than one crap developer working on a package. I don't agree at all. multiple signature has to be used if you have really reviewed the package. And as an XP freak, I guess you should know that cross-reading is really good for code quality. I don't understand why it shouldn't be the same for packages. And since we quite all agree that managing multiple gpg signatures is not *that* difficult, it may worth trying it, doesn't it ? -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpivd3dYpC4i.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:23:52AM +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: Le Lun 21 F?vrier 2005 00:16, Matthew Palmer a ?crit : NEW would still have to be processed by hand, though -- crypto notifications still need to be sent, and the protection provided by two crap developers working on a package isn't not that much better than one crap developer working on a package. I don't agree at all. multiple signature has to be used if you have really reviewed the package. And as an XP freak, I guess you should know that cross-reading is really good for code quality. I don't understand why it shouldn't be the same for packages. Because there's no guarantee (or even real likelihood) that the two developers whose signatures appear on the package have sufficient Clue to be able to produce quality packages. Pair programming only works when both people are switched on and taking note of their surroundings. The ftpmasters are, in general, senior and clueful DDs, with a good knowledge of the likely high and low points of a package. And since we quite all agree that managing multiple gpg signatures is not *that* difficult, it may worth trying it, doesn't it ? Oh, I think it's a great idea, I'm just not convinced that it'll suffice for clearing the NEW processing delay. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Anthony Towns wrote: an attack on a subgroup you have a grudge against. Bah, that was uncalled for. I've no reason to think Thomas is holding any grudges. What's sad is that even as Martin Krafft seems to be sincere in wanting to apologise and get on with things (in private mail anyway), the torch is just taken up by Thomas and Joel and MJ Ray anyway and the accusations of working against the project continue without abate. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050217 11:35]: also sprach Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2005.02.17.0252 +0100]: That, eg, you can't manage to think about apt 0.6 without wanting to move the topic to ftpmaster bashing just confirms that assumption. I was trying to move forward in the way I would have moved forward if I had to get things done quickly; I was told to stop because things are to be done in public, despite my rationale explaining how I wanted to avoid discussions and be productive. _Nobody_ prevents you to create your own mailinglist and discuss things there. Feel free to do it. However, don't expect that anybody is forced to subscribe there. If your proposals are good, they might be accepted. Discussing things with people that _have_ experience in the relevant topics might have some positive influence on both the result and the acceptance by the relevante maintainers / delegates. That's all, rest is your call. Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
also sprach Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2005.02.19.1108 +0100]: What's sad is that even as Martin Krafft seems to be sincere in wanting to apologise and get on with things (in private mail anyway), the torch is just taken up by Thomas and Joel and MJ Ray anyway and the accusations of working against the project continue without abate. All we want is information, AJ. If it is okay with you, I propose an experiment. Over the next days (or weeks... after all you surely have your priorities), I ask you to prepare a little announcement or document which states the following: (a) What the role of ftpmaster entails. (b) Where your priorities are at this point, leading up to sarge? (c) It would be nice to know where priorities are placed when not about to release. (d) Where you think that the current ftpmasters excel. (e) Where you think improvements could be made. This does not have to be long, but it should be enough to give us non-ftpmaster dudes a good idea of what you are up to. I expect the result of the experiment to be everything else but flames. I expect us non-ftpmasters to appreciate your report, and furthermore, I expect us all to settle down and not bug you anymore, because we will know (or be able to figure out) the answers to our questions. I did not include the processing of the NEW queue above, because I think it's clear to most everyone that (quote vorlon) letting more and more packages into unstable at this point in the release cycle is not what we should be concentrating on. Would you be willing to try this experiment? As I told you in my private email, I would be more than happy to work with, not against you. In fact, as many have pointed out to me, my points may have been valid, but I majorly screwed up by going OT and sarcastic. I want to apologise now, in public, for my faux pas, and to AJ for insulting him without any grounds, because, in fact, he did not really give me a reason. While I was attacking the ftpmaster role, I can well conceive how the attack probably came in personal to one or the other. Therefore, I would be grateful if the other ftpmasters were to accept my apologies too. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
* martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050217 14:05]: also sprach Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2005.02.17.1307 +0100]: Can you possibly conceive there might perhaps be some other explanation for why I'm not writing tediously long emails or involved in heated debates about what changes to the archive should or shouldn't happen? Sure I can; which is why I wanted to discuss APT 0.6 outside of the hostile environment That coming from the person who converted this thread into such a hostile one is, eh, interessting. Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ PGP 1024/89FB5CE5 DC F1 85 6D A6 45 9C 0F 3B BE F1 D0 C5 D1 D9 0C -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
also sprach Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005.02.19.1411 +0100]: _Nobody_ prevents you to create your own mailinglist and discuss things there. Feel free to do it. However, don't expect that anybody is forced to subscribe there. I did, and I never forced anyone to subscribe, did I. As a result of the mayhem that resulted from the creation of the list, my motivation got immersed into glycerine. So at this point, I am not going to be the one moving forward. The list still exists, some have subscribed, I'd be ready to go. The rest is up to the others that want to contribute. And for what it's worth: while I would prefer to get going in a smaller audience, get to some sort of base level, and then take things public, I won't object to using a crowded list for this. Let's hope we don't get strung up on tiffs before even getting anywhere. If your proposals are good, they might be accepted. Discussing things with people that _have_ experience in the relevant topics might have some positive influence on both the result and the acceptance by the relevante maintainers / delegates. That's all, rest is your call. No, it's not. It's Florian's. He's the chair. I stepped into the spotlight, which was not my intention. I would ask Florian to please take things from here so I can move to the back and help quietly (which is what I initially wanted to do). -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
martin f krafft wrote: All we want is information, AJ. If it is okay with you, I propose an experiment. Over the next days (or weeks... after all you surely have your priorities), I ask you to prepare a little announcement or document which states the following: And you know, all you're achieving by this is making it less likely that I'll even consider it. Seriously, here's the sums you're proposing: 1) irritate aj 2) make aj waste lots of time writing irrelevant emails 3) apologise 4) wait 5) have aj do what you want (1) (2) and (5) are work or irritation for me, (1) and (3) are just formulaic emails, (2) and (4) involve a little patience on your part, and (5) is the pay off. So I get 3 big drawbacks, and no gain; you get two small drawbacks, and a big win. In sum, from your perspective and asusming this works, this is definitely the way to go, so if you're a rational person, or if anyone watching you is a rational person, they're going to want to repeat your little experiment to get whatever they want. What's worse, is even if I was planning to do (4) anyway because I thought it'd be useful, doing so now would make it more likely someone would *think* it was your scheme that made me do it, and would thus try it out themselves in future. (Alternatively, I could just ignore it at (2), in which case you or someone else just repeats (1) until I get sick of it entirely and we move ahead as planned; or you repeat (1) and then (5) happens, and we get the same situation that people think (5) happened because of (1), with the same drawbacks) Would you be willing to try this experiment? So, no, definitely not. But hey, if you're really desperate for something (and TBH, I can't see why you would be), I am often responsive to bribes. To pick an entirely random example, tiffani support in Apt proper would be of some small interest... BTW, debconf talk idea: How to *actually* stop participating in a thread when you say you're going to. Feh. And ffs, why are we having this conversation instead of talking about cool stuff for Apt 0.6? Sometimes the best way of letting a sore heal is *not* poking at it constantly, you know... Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
aj wrote: You know, I would've thought ask nicely would've appeared on that list somewhere. Apparently not. Would that work? It's not my experience that emailing ftpmasters gets any reaction. Talking to other DDs suggests that's not unusual and that's why I didn't think of ask nicely. Can you see why? To be fair, I've not asked you in particular. And no, no matter how many pleases you say, or how much sugar you add on top, you can't make it asking nicely when you begin by dissing someone. This thread is _utterly_ dead as far as that goes. This is another part of the problem. DDs are a diverse community, in writing style and cursing frequency, amongst other ways. There's not really a strong diplomacy test in the NM process. If ftpmasters are going to sulk every time someone criticises them, they're really damaging. I wouldn't have chosen to start this discussion here, but what practical difference does it make whether it's now, or left a month? But mostly the problem is the whole concept of making them do what I want. It's just not appropriate, however you try to obscure it with wanting. If no one wants to do what you want them to do, you're out of luck -- you get to do it yourself and prove them all wrong, either within Debian if that's possible, or outside of it if it's not. Yes, that's a problem. If telling other volunteers what they're doing isn't part of ftpmasters' task, it's a problem. I'd be quite happy to do it myself, but if current ftpmasters aren't explaining anything to anyone, it requires sacking ftpmasters or forking debian. It sucks if ftpmasters' approach is we can be as rough as we like as long as it's below forking friction. What if you misjudge where fork point is? I think the root problem is how do ftpmasters work? and it's one that the current DPL included in his last election platform. Now we're starting another election round and nothing seems to have changed for ftpmasters. Have ftpmasters discussed this with this DPL? (Well, I guess for completeness, I should mention pay them as the obvious fifth option.) It wasn't obvious to me. What prices are the ftpmasters asking for what actions? -- MJR/slef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Joel Aelwyn wrote: On Sat, Feb 19, 2005 at 08:08:55PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: What's sad is that even as Martin Krafft seems to be sincere in wanting to apologise and get on with things (in private mail anyway), the torch is just taken up by Thomas and Joel and MJ Ray anyway and the accusations of working against the project continue without abate. You asked, in another part of the thread, why nobody listed ask nicely. Because it gets ignored So tell me, how do you imagine Matthew Garrett got the information in the summary he just posted? As was noted in another email, I have never worked with any other volunteer organization where the right to do no work translated into the right to hold a position and not do the tasks associated with it, only that one could not be required to accept a position with responsibilites beyond what one wanted to do. Well then, this must be an exciting new experience for you; I hope you're approaching it with an open mind and a receptive aspect. We don't let random developers who never upload, never speak, and don't answer their mail continue as developers with voting rights, after a certain point (we call them MIA, instead). MIA developers certainly are able to vote; they're also able to upload and login to Debian machines. Every now and then MIA maintainers get pinged to see if they still exist, and only if they don't reply to that or reply indicating they have no use for their accounts, do their accounts get disabled. If they change their minds and want their privleges back, they have to do nothing more than ask. And further, MIA means not responding; for all we know, may not exist anymore, not the not fulfilling their responsibilities that you seem to want it to mean. I realise your ignorance in this and other matters is because of the very problem you're criticising, and I certainly can forgive you that; what that doesn't make it acceptable to start pontificating on things you know absolutely nothing about. Although, heck, the above *is* documented publically; you can find it in the developers reference for the MIA status implications, and a description of how an MIA ping works, via the -devel-announce post from (iirc) last time such a thing happened: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/05/msg6.html If not do any work you don't want to do is really enshrined as you interpret it in the Constitution, then we have violated it every time we revoke an MIA account, because we have no statement of their intent to resign, as opposed to merely doing no work. See, this is what you get for discussing things on Debian lists -- people with an axe to grind, who've no idea what they're talking about, telling you how things absolutely must or must not be done, and getting it wrong. And that's even when all the information on the topic has already been made publically available. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:00:13 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote: martin f krafft wrote: There are people who want information from you, and those people have a right to this information because it is *our* project, not yours. You have absolutely no right to demand /anything/ of me, /at all/. What you get from me is precisely that which I choose to give; and when you're actively insulting me, that's absolutely nothing. I'll try to address a question of principle here; I don't want this to be interpreted as making a comment on any individual's conduct. I think that mfk's request for information (quoted) was addressed to ajt as an ftpmaster, not as a private person. With a position of responsibility come, erm, responsibilities. This goes as much for the position of package maintainer as it does for the position of ftpmaster. That Debian is a volunteer project does not change that. Also, the fact that some people make the fulfilment of one's duties unpleasant does not absolve him of his responsibilities. Because Debian is a volunteer project it is always possible to shed responsibility, but the way to do it is to resign one's position. -- Thomas Hood -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
Thomas Hood wrote: On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 02:00:13 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote: martin f krafft wrote: There are people who want information from you, and those people have a right to this information because it is *our* project, not yours. You have absolutely no right to demand /anything/ of me, /at all/. What you get from me is precisely that which I choose to give; and when you're actively insulting me, that's absolutely nothing. I'll try to address a question of principle here; I don't want this to be interpreted as making a comment on any individual's conduct. I think that mfk's request for information (quoted) was addressed to ajt as an ftpmaster, not as a private person. Well, that's nice and all, but there's absolutely no difference between me as a private person and as an ftpmaster -- my work on Debian is done *as* a private person, not as an employee, or under any other formal relationship. Further, the governing document of Debian *specifically* indicates that no one has *any* right to demand anything of me, except that I not actively work against the rest of the project. With a position of responsibility come, erm, responsibilities. So while I completely understand this sentiment, it's also completely and utterly inappropriate in the context of Debian. If you want other people to do things for you in Debian, you need them to want to do it, you can't just go around trying to make life unpleasant for them if they don't. I realise that's nothing like the norm in the rest of life, and that it's not easy and convenient, but it's the way things are. Think of it this way and extrapolate, perhaps: just because you can have a volunteer military, doesn't mean every volunteer project will have military style command and control. Because Debian is a volunteer project it is always possible to shed responsibility, but the way to do it is to resign one's position. And again, I'm sorry, but you're simply wrong on this score. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
aj wrote: If you want other people to do things for you in Debian, you need them to want to do it, you can't just go around trying to make life unpleasant for them if they don't. OK. What would make ftpmasters want to tell the rest of the project anything more about their work? I know some limits of volunteering. One of those limits is balancing wants of different volunteers. In my experience, the best approach is to have a shot at reconciliation, then get the disagreers apart. There's a nasty problem here if you won't ever agree: ftpmasters can affect all other active developers. DDs want know about ftpmasters, but ftpmasters don't send much to debian-devel-announce: it seems like mostly after stuff breaks. DDs don't know how to make them want to do anything, so that leaves three obvious options: 1. use democractic processes to fix this; 2. make their lives hell until they talk or quit; 3. telepathy. I don't like option 2. Option 1 could make it happen anyway. Option 3 is beyond most of us - if anyone can help, please do what I'm thinking. No, not goats. If ftpmasters say X would make us want to send/help send Bits from ftpmasters to d-d-a periodically, then it gets pretty easy to put out the flamers. This is all predictable and easy for ftpmasters to help avoid, isn't it? -- MJR/slef I wrote debian-devel-annoy first. M-x doctor, where are you? - I'm also off to take my own advice. Ahem. Thanks, debian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the ftpmasters
also sprach Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2005.02.17.0252 +0100]: That, eg, you can't manage to think about apt 0.6 without wanting to move the topic to ftpmaster bashing just confirms that assumption. I was trying to move forward in the way I would have moved forward if I had to get things done quickly; I was told to stop because things are to be done in public, despite my rationale explaining how I wanted to avoid discussions and be productive. Some days later I am reminded offline that what happened to me should really happen to the ftpmasters: they should be told by some authoritative person to do things in public so that everyone can participate. Then I wrote an email, which, I give you that, was below the waisteline, but look at the effect: every constructive post following my initial message came from people wondering what ftpmasters are and what they are doing. You, vorlon, and HE, however, have nothing better to do than to save yourself by complaining how insulting I am and how much we all suck and so on. Why not assume that I am simply socially incompetent, be confident about it and ignore my bashing, but rather address the points raised by others, instead of sticking your head in the sand and complaining that we are all too offensive? -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bits from the ftpmasters (was: Take APT 0.6 discussion public!)
also sprach Anthony Towns aj@azure.humbug.org.au [2005.02.17.0025 +0100]: Honestly, I'd love to talk about these sorts of things more publically; Why have you not done so in the past? but I'm not willing to do that in an environment that's actively hostile. The stage is yours. The thread is another. I am calm. Please... -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft [EMAIL PROTECTED] : :' :proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! signature.asc Description: Digital signature
