Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
Mark Brown wrote: Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators (though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one). There are templates for doc writers, and it should not be too hard to work out something for translators. I can't see a problem here. -- 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
On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 09:34:26AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: Mark Brown wrote: Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators (though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one). There are templates for doc writers, and it should not be too hard to work out something for translators. I can't see a problem here. Like I say, the problem is/was partly the one size fits all aspect of the packaging templates - the packaging templates are so wide ranging that you start to get into the same sort of issue asking people packaging questions about things that are vastly outside their area. From what Frans said it sounds like the templates are actually being thinned down for individual applicants by at least some AMs which does deal with this part of the issue. -- 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
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:20:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: 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. In practice, I (with my not that often used FD hat on) will accept an AM report that is a result of a non-templated process, provided that the AM was thorough in their requests. If 'not using the templates' is just an excuse for I think there's just way too much stuff in the templates, and I want to get this over with, with as little effort as possible, then I will not accept it. However, if the mailbox convinces me that the AM did indeed thorougly check the skills and knowledge of the NM, in about as thorough a manner as would be done through use of the templates (or better, which is hardly difficult), then I personally do not object to people ignoring the templates; on the contrary. I don't have any reason to think the DAM's idea of this is different, but I could of course be mistaken. (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. That is most certainly true; the big list of questions is mostly an attempt at trying to cover as much as possible, so anyone (even those who clearly know their stuff) are tested thoroughly. Personalizing the process by asking little questions about things the applicant is clearly an expert on, but asking more and doing more mentoring on areas the applicant is not an expert on, is certainly welcome. I definitely would like to see more people doing so. -- 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
On Friday 17 July 2009, Mark Brown wrote: Right, it appears to be trying to make sure that someone might possibly run into in Debian has been covered. Like I say, this is a large part of my problem with it at this point - I don't think that is an achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators (though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one). That last is simply not true. If someone wants to enter the project as translator or documentation writer or whatever, the AM has the option of simply skipping any parts of the NM process that are not relevant for that task and adding other TS tasks that test skills relevant to that role. For example, during my NM process I was never asked to do any of the TS parts dealing with e.g. library packaging because it was understood that I was just not interested in doing that. My AM, FD and DAM had faith that I would not attempt things outside my area of interest and skills, so I was accepted into the project without being able to package a library. I have of course extended my skills over time, but as I'm still completely uninterested in library packaging and have never come close to doing it, it looks like that was a good call. 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
On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:02:52PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: On Friday 17 July 2009, Mark Brown wrote: achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators (though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one). That last is simply not true. If someone wants to enter the project as translator or documentation writer or whatever, the AM has the option of simply skipping any parts of the NM process that are not relevant for that task and adding other TS tasks that test skills relevant to that role. I know that was the original theory. However, if we're asking packagers a big list of questions which attempt to cover every possible aspect of development it seems at best uneven to skip that for non-packagers. Clearly the TS questions aren't going to be terribly appropriate for someone working on non-packaging tasks but one could equally make the argument that if someone's working on packaging particular kinds of package then those TS questions that cover other areas of packaging aren't relevant to them. That said... For example, during my NM process I was never asked to do any of the TS parts dealing with e.g. library packaging because it was understood that I was just not interested in doing that. My AM, FD and DAM had faith that I would not attempt things outside my area of interest and skills, so I was accepted into the project without being able to package a library. ...it seems that an approach which does skip some of the templates is being accepted, which is good. I'm guessing that some of the AMs might not have realised this, at least in the past - I know when I saw people saying to use the templates I didn't get the impression that this was the idea, especially given the coverage goal. -- 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
On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 09:08:26AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
I don't think the ftpmaster group should trust another group to do
full reviews if the ftpmaster group is the one legally responsible
for the archive. Sure, it might be useful, since they might get
problems fixed before the package in question is reviewed, but a
full check still needs to happen.
I concur, but it is not yet certain (actually: it has never been) that
legally FTP masters are the responsible for the archive content. AFAIK
there is a still pending query to the SPI lawyer about 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
]] Stefano Zacchiroli | So, would it help you FTP masters to have an explicit declaration of | review for a NEW upload or not? If the reviewers are named, you might | build your trust on different people (which I believe you already have | anyhow, as it is normal to be) and so on. I don't think the ftpmaster group should trust another group to do full reviews if the ftpmaster group is the one legally responsible for the archive. Sure, it might be useful, since they might get problems fixed before the package in question is reviewed, but a full check still needs to happen. If we want to change that, we should also change who are the ones legally responsible for the archive. -- Tollef Fog Heen (not an ftpmaster) UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are -- 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
Le Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:16:35AM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : 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. For the copyright notices, I propose to study the most common licenses (typically, the ones who would get their abbriged name standardised in DEP5) and make a table that summarises their requirements on that issue. That work could take place on the debian-legal mailing list, for instance. With a good summary of the situation, I think that we will have more chances to reach a consensus on this list or debian-devel, whithout generating too much messages that would turn people out of the discussion. Hi all, I started a documentation effort on debian-legal: http://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20090701145728.gc16...@kunpuu.plessy.org Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Debian Med packaging team, http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:17:15 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: [reviews of debian/copyright] 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). 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? We don't have some formal procedure for reviewing debian/copyright; I guess it's just some kind of group culture that we want to produce sound packages which includes correct copyright/licensing information. And REJECTs caused by sloppy work are both embarrassing and time-consuming for all involved parties :) In practice it helps in my opinion * to have some nit-pickers in the group who spread this culture; * to have simple packages (with a 3-line debian/rules we can take some more time for getting debian/copyright right :)); * that there are some recurrent pitfalls that appear in several packages again; * for reviews, at least for me, that we mostly use the new copyright format (the structure makes it easier for me to spot problems than some free-form prose); * that (at least parts of) the group works together on IRC where it's easy to just ask hey, package foo has a weird copyright, could someone else please take a look and give their opinion? and that we actually do this; * that our upstream authors are usually very responsive when we ask them for clarifications or adding missing pieces, and that also lowers the bar for actually asking. I'm not sure there's some conclusion that I can offer from my experience in the pkg-perl group to others; if any, it might be that a group culture that encourages close cooperation and an endeavour for diligence pays off. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ -- GPG Key IDs: 0x00F3CFE4, 0x8649AA06 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/ `-NP: R.E.M.: Star Me Kitten signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
Lucas Nussbaum dijo [Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:50:17AM +0200]: 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. I just have read my first NM has been approved as DD (yay, Francisco!). I don't think, as I have already said in this thread, I processed him particularly fast. Even more, my report to FD (December 8) was lost for a month. Still, it took slightly less than a year for him to go from being assigned to me (July 6) to being approved (June 30). I don't think the situation is as hard as you paint it. -- Gunnar Wolf • gw...@gwolf.org • (+52-55)5623-0154 / 1451-2244 -- 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
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 07:12:55AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
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.
Fair enough (even though the original mail [1] still list the need to
read and write Python, you might want to reword that). I was just
suggesting that maybe, if you want some more man power for NEW, it
might be wise to relax the hour/week requirement which is quite scary.
Cheers.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/01/msg4.html
--
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
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 07:14:19AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
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.
So, would it help you FTP masters to have an explicit declaration of
review for a NEW upload or not? If the reviewers are named, you might
build your trust on different people (which I believe you already have
anyhow, as it is normal to be) and so on.
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
This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said: 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? When we (DSA) add an account with the ud-ldap tools, it already sends an automated email to the new DD. It could also potentially mail -project or something with some simple template. The downside of doing it that way is we have none of the NM process information available. Cheers, -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :sg...@debian.org | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Sun, 28 Jun 2009, Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said: 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? When we (DSA) add an account with the ud-ldap tools, it already sends an automated email to the new DD. It could also potentially mail -project or something with some simple template. The downside of doing it that way is we have none of the NM process information available. Yeah, that email is pretty useless for most people. The only interesting piece of information in 10+k of email would be the To-line. weasel -- | .''`. ** 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
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:00:23PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: 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. Well, one thing one might thing of: Auditing soname-changes. However, I guess the release-team would be the better group to evaluate those and I do not have an immediate idea on how to do this without causing major delays. 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
Stephen Gran wrote: This one time, at band camp, Bernd Zeimetz said: 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? When we (DSA) add an account with the ud-ldap tools, it already sends an automated email to the new DD. It could also potentially mail -project or something with some simple template. The downside of doing it that way is we have none of the NM process information available. I'm working on a cronjob already which is able to read the data from the NM database and will send out such mails to -project. It will rely on the fact that new DDs should receive an account on merkel. Cheers, Bernd -- 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
I'm working on a cronjob already which is able to read the data from the NM database and will send out such mails to -project. It will rely on the fact that new DDs should receive an account on merkel. Why dont you just use ldap and not rely on something unstable like the assumption that nm.d.o is always on a host that has all users? -- bye, Joerg I tried to make my own judgements all the time. And that involves reading the fscking graphviz license in full many times! -- 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 wrote: I'm working on a cronjob already which is able to read the data from the NM database and will send out such mails to -project. It will rely on the fact that new DDs should receive an account on merkel. Why dont you just use ldap and not rely on something unstable like the assumption that nm.d.o is always on a host that has all users? 1. I'm too lazy to write my own code and wait for the rewrite of ud-ldap. 2. ldap was too often not available due to network problems. I really want to avoid it as long as there is a chance that I have to investigate manually why it failed again. -- 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
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
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: 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. The NM process should not take two years. If it does, there is something clearly going wrong there. Once I'm finished to clean up those candidates which are assigned to their AM since years and went away, I'll start to keep an eye on the length of the process. -- 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
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: 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? yes. -- 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
Mark Brown broo...@sirena.org.uk (25/06/2009): On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson 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 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. Indeed. Frontdesk says (through the welcome-new-AM mail): | Please note that philosophy and procedures questions are very | important. If you don't ask enough of them, the DAM cannot make a | proper decision which will cause great delay for the applicant. Also, | good proof should be included in the final report that the applicant | has the technical and social skills to become a Debian developer and | be part of a team of 1000. Please also include mails you exchange | with your applicant about their packages. | | Joerg Jaspert has written very good PP (Philosophy/Procedures) and | TS (Tasks/Skills) templates. While it's not strictly a requirement, | it's recommended that you use them or base yours on them. You can get | them from [4]. | | [4] | svn://svn.debian.org/svn/nm/trunk/nm-templates Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bernd Zeimetz rašė: Lucas Nussbaum wrote: 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. The NM process should not take two years. If it does, there is something clearly going wrong there. Once I'm finished to clean up those candidates which are assigned to their AM since years and went away, I'll start to keep an eye on the length of the process. And why you still leave those losers, who during the 2...3 years, failed to become a DD? Rather, they only cause damage to Debian. All of them should be removed from the MN queue. Only problem in that the need for each of them to explain the reasons why he is rejected. And again, not such a duty to say that the losers do not need to Debian. Say the truth to each loser would be more honestly, I think. One such unfortunate, - -- Kęstutis Biliūnas ke...@kaunas.init.lt http://kebil.ghost.lt | GnuPG-Key ID: F6E7A452 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpEtHYACgkQFXHEz/bnpFKXJwCfa2fXtpeB6rynwkvN5Udh7DYn QZYAoJhArGzTEsY0Umpl2J1jaPeOy1Py =y3V5 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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
Kęstutis Biliūnas wrote: And why you still leave those losers, who during the 2...3 years, failed to become a DD? Rather, they only cause damage to Debian. All of them should be removed from the MN queue. Only problem in that the need for each of them to explain the reasons why he is rejected. And again, not such a duty to say that the losers do not need to Debian. 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. -- 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
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. It is my assumption that this is the part of NEW that is the most time consuming and causes delays, which is the context of this discussion. Am I wrong? If yes, please explain. 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 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: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: Julien BLACHE wrote: Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl 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? 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 ? 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
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
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
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
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
On 2009-06-25, Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org 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 and NEW queues processing
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
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 Lo-lan-do 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:00:59PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote: Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl 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
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:35:30AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de 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
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
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
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
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin jackyf.de...@gmail.com 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
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
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
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: DAM and NEW queues processing
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
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
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
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
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
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 people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
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 PP or TS, 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
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: DAM and NEW queues processing
Giacomo A. Catenazzi c...@cateee.net 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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 mj...@debian.org 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) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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
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
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
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
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 liw 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
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 and NEW queues processing
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
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 and NEW queues processing
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
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
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 and NEW queues processing
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
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
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 09:24:14AM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:13:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : But all of that said, it still needs trusted people to review the packages, which is where we've traditionally started to have scaling problems. This is where a public peer-review has an advantage: when submitting and reviewing a package we are exposed to the reviews of others. People who make good reviews will build a reputation, and will be natural candidates if we want to maintain a team of trusted people who have the last word. And conversly, an open system lets people try the task and test their commitment before asking for a responsability. I'm possibly confused here. You seem to be advocating popping the decision process from a team of trusted people who have the last word, and pushing it on to a peer-review system. Which can then be used to form a team of trusted people who have the last word. Could you explain? Neil -- dkscully doesn't the world come to an end if iDunno shaves? Maulkin That's how the dinosaurs died then... iDunno and why the dodo was made extinct, the last known habitat for them was my beard... poor bastards didn't stand a chance. -- 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
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 18:26:43 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Imagine a process where we only require 5 recommendation emails from existing DDs. First, it is obvious that different requirements would apply to those recommendations, than to the current advocate emails: since the applicant would be a DD almost immediately after the 5 emails have been received, it is clear that current DDs would only advocate people when they are fully ready to be a DD. And from the applicant point of view, getting 5 DDs to write an email recommending you looks a lot more difficult that answering 50 questions for which the answers are all available on the internet. It requires a lot more social skills, and probably a lot more work to get 5 DDs to trust you enough to say I want X to become a DD now, provided that 4 other DDs agree. It requires more work, but it's actually productive work, not just for the sake of the process, so presumably it's work you would do anyway. So I'm not convinced it's a lot more difficult to show you've done good work than to reply to a bunch of questions, and more importantly I think it's more likely to filter for the right people. (also, on the topic of people who are ready when they enter NM go through it fast, https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=samuel.thibault%40ens-lyon.org) Cheers, Julien -- 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
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Julien Cristau wrote: (also, on the topic of people who are ready when they enter NM go through it fast, https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=samuel.thibault%40ens-lyon.org ) Oh, I had missed that Samuel had become a DD. That's great. Congrats. /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that used to be sent out periodically -- 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
On 24/06/09 at 11:45 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: (also, on the topic of people who are ready when they enter NM go through it fast, https://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=samuel.thibault%40ens-lyon.org) Describing people like Samuel Thibault or Chris Lamb as people who are ready when they enter NM, and therefore implying that if you take more than 6 months, it's because you were not ready, is just insulting for all the other applicants who were also ready when they entered NM, but, because of bad luck (busy AM, busy DAM, etc), ended up spending a year and a half in the process. Chris Lamb and Samuel Thibault both applied very late. Much too late. Before they applied, several people have been wondering why they weren't DDs yet. I'm not sure why they didn't apply earlier, but the fact that our NM process is so unappealing might not be totally unrelated. It's actually sad that we need to push[1] skilled people like them to apply to NM. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2008/09/msg00031.html -- | 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
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Describing people like Samuel Thibault or Chris Lamb as people who are ready when they enter NM, and therefore implying that if you take more than 6 months, it's because you were not ready, is just insulting for all the other applicants who were also ready when they entered NM, but, No, it's not and it also does not imply that at all. It just means that they did an NM where the emphasis was on checking skills and where some steps could probably be skipped or kept very short because skills had already been proven in practice. For other people NM is more a learning process which naturally takes longer. And as several people have pointed out, that is perfectly OK. And certainly nothing to be ashamed of. I suspect that in both these cases their NMs used their discretion in tailoring the process to the individual applicant. And that is exactly how it should be. And it clearly was also accepted by the FD and DAM as otherwise they would not be DDs now. because of bad luck (busy AM, busy DAM, etc), ended up spending a year and a half in the process. Chris Lamb and Samuel Thibault both applied very late. Much too late. Why? IMO it can be a valid choice. Your link clearly shows that Samuel's focus has never been on package maintenance, so maybe he's never felt the need to be a DD, or at least did not see it as a priority. I know that was the case for me: I was perfectly happy just contributing to D-I. It was just when it became a hindrance not to be a DD because my involvement changed that I decided to join. Before they applied, several people have been wondering why they weren't DDs yet. I'm not sure why they didn't apply earlier, but the fact that our NM process is so unappealing might not be totally unrelated. But it might also be totally unrelated. Maybe they just were not sure of their own commitment to the project yet to justify the effort that NM is. -- 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
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote: NM process: - the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates, ... This *might* work if we solve what in my opinion is the main problem here: DDs advocating too early. Actually, if the applicants are ready, they will have few problems with their processes in the current format (it is normal do not know a few questions, nobody knows everything) and it will be result in a reduced exchange of emails: less time for AM, FD and DAM. And we already have DM to avoid the frustration to not being able to upload trivial packaging changes. Now DM has been here for some time, we might consider improve it, but that is another issues. 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). The reason is that the unassigned applicants list is huge, Please do not do so, under any circumstances. Yes, the list is long, but advocating people before they are ready makes the problem worse, in two ways: - First, you make the list longer, thereby contributing to the problem that you are arguing against in the first place. - Second, if the applicant loses interest somewhat, or is not talented enough to understand how to properly maintain packages in the long run, we end up with an NM in the process who requires much more time than an NM who is, in fact, ready (NMs who have much to learn still invariably take *much* more time than other NMs). They take up valuable AM slots for several months -- in most cases long NM processes are because the NM takes a long time answering the AM, rather than the other way around -- thereby making people after them in the queue wait longer than they otherwise would have, thus making the queue grow. Frontdesk has in the past already ignored advocacy messages from people who would advocate applicants too soon, for the above reasons. Please make sure we won't have to start ignoring your advocacy messages, too. -- 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
Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: That I can definitely agree is a concern, and it would be very nice to figure out a way to find project consensus on what should and shouldn't go into the debian/copyright file. Or, more importantly, an actual consistent policy (with rationale) from the ftpmasters to say what they require. -- \“If you go parachuting, and your parachute doesn't open, and | `\you friends are all watching you fall, I think a funny gag | _o__) would be to pretend you were swimming.” —Jack Handey | Ben Finney -- 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
Hello, Just to confirm a few things. Frans wrote: Your link clearly shows that Samuel's focus has never been on package maintenance, so maybe he's never felt the need to be a DD, or at least did not see it as a priority. That is very true. I actually told my AM that what I really appreciate in Debian is the wide variety of informal contributions you can very easily bring to Debian, be it just through the BTS. It was just when it became a hindrance not to be a DD because my involvement changed that I decided to join. So did I. But it might also be totally unrelated. Maybe they just were not sure of their own commitment to the project yet to justify the effort that NM is. Yes. Actually, at least one very unrelated reason is that I got a stable position at the University of Bordeaux last September. Before that I wasn't sure about how much I would be able to commit to the project. I however believe I was lucky for my NM process to have a very responsive AM. Samuel (please Cc me if need so, as I'm not subscribed to debian-project) -- 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 elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009): /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that used to be sent out periodically They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but AFAICT there might be something wrong there, since Samuel wasn't mentioned end of may/beginning of june. Cc'ing FrontDesk, which appears in the From: of such mails. Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:21:48PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009): /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that used to be sent out periodically They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but AFAICT there might be something wrong there, since Samuel wasn't mentioned end of may/beginning of june. Cc'ing FrontDesk, which appears in the From: of such mails. There are two mails. The first type is the one that gives you the NM Report; it is automated, sent by a script that gathers its data from the NM database. 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. Of course, since all the information that is part of the mails should already be available by the time this mail is sent out, there's nothing stopping anyone so inclined from doing this themselves... -- 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
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009): /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that used to be sent out periodically They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but AFAICT there might be something wrong there, since Samuel wasn't mentioned end of may/beginning of june. Cc'ing FrontDesk, which appears in the From: of such mails. OK, but that's not the one I meant. We also had one with the new DD's intro of themselves that was sent to d-project [1]. The last one I can find quickly is from early 2007 [2]. I always found it very useful as most DDs don't follow d-newmaint but will still be interested who have joined the project. Hmm. Maybe at least a simple list of names could be included in each Misc developer news? [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2004/08/msg00015.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/02/msg00024.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
Cyril Brulebois wrote: Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl (24/06/2009): /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that used to be sent out periodically They still are (see debian-newmaint@, “NM Report for Week ending…”), but AFAICT there might be something wrong there, since Samuel wasn't mentioned end of may/beginning of june. Cc'ing FrontDesk, which appears in the From: of such mails. Guess you mean that he was not in the list of new DDs? The problem here is that the date of account creation is entered by DAM manually - and sometimes forgotten. Would be great if somebody with spare time could write a cronjob which compares the account names in the NM database with the output of getent and set the account created field I didn't find the time for it yet... Cheers, Bernd -- 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
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? -- 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
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:45 PM, Frans Popelen...@planet.nl wrote: OK, but that's not the one I meant. We also had one with the new DD's intro of themselves that was sent to d-project [1]. The last one I can find quickly is from early 2007 [2]. I always found it very useful as most DDs don't follow d-newmaint but will still be interested who have joined the project. Hmm. Maybe at least a simple list of names could be included in each Misc developer news? I'd like to see the list of names (and links to the AM reports for more info) in misc developer news too. -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- 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
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:39:20PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Chris Lamb and Samuel Thibault both applied very late. Much too late. Before they applied, several people have been wondering why they weren't DDs yet. I'm not sure why they didn't apply earlier, but the fact that our NM process is so unappealing might not be totally unrelated. It's actually sad that we need to push[1] skilled people like them to apply to NM. FTR, Samuel didn't apply to NM before because he didn't have GPG key. (I think he believed he couldn't be responsible enough handling it for a couple of years). Once he had one, he applied for DM (or the other way round), and then for NM a couple of months later. 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 elen...@planet.nl 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? JB. -- Julien BLACHE - Debian GNU/Linux Developer - jbla...@debian.org Public key available on http://www.jblache.org - KeyID: F5D6 5169 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 -- 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
Ben Finney ben+deb...@benfinney.id.au writes: Russ Allbery r...@debian.org writes: That I can definitely agree is a concern, and it would be very nice to figure out a way to find project consensus on what should and shouldn't go into the debian/copyright file. 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. As we've already seen with previous iterations of this discussion, it's too easy to draw conclusions based on the vast majority of tiny packages and create situations that are untenable for the small number of huge packages we have. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- 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
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 05:45:35PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: OK, but that's not the one I meant. We also had one with the new DD's intro of themselves that was sent to d-project [1]. The last one I can find quickly is from early 2007 [2]. I always found it very useful as most DDs don't follow d-newmaint but will still be interested who have joined the project. I do follow d-newmaint, but I don't think the reports that are sent there actually include the names of new maintainers. -- 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
On 11790 March 1977, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Then NEW. Nothing out of the ordinary here: NEW delays are often raised on -devel@ (see [1] for example), and it's apparently considered normal to wait 2 or more weeks before one's package gets reviewed. Since this often blocks other works, it is a major source of slowdown in Debian. Of course, it happens that the NEW queue is nearly empty and processed almost daily[2], but we depend on the free time of too few people, so good times never last. 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. [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. [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2009/03/msg7.html It is clear, based on the previous attempts to solve those problems, that simply throwing more manpower on the DAM and ftpmasters team won't solve those problems. We have tried that for years, and it has failed for years. Wrong, the solution for NEW *is* more manpower. One just doesn't find the qualified manpower easily. (And with qualified I mean those points we wrote in our last few ftpmaster mails, not the actual doing of the work in NEW, learning that is part of trainee). We need to compromise on the level of quality we expect from our prospective DDs and new packages. Why do you want to make Debian worse? Somehow I had the opinion we are trying to make the best OS ever, not something that maybe works sometimes, given the right moon phase. - 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 The last attempt to take away 95% of the current, possibly, tedious question/answer style was rejected. for verifying that enough DDs have reviewed the package. And ftpmasters could still choose some interesting packages and check them manually. No. Of course, this will lead to buggy packages being uploaded to Debian. We do not block buggy packages. Very often there are *bad* bugs passing NEW as we simply dont check the actual functionality of the software (thank god). But that is already the case, and Debian has never been sued so far, AFAIK. That we never have been sued for license trouble doesn't mean its a sane idea to ask for it, which you do want to do. It will also create a culture of asking for reviews from other maintainers, which, in the long term, could help improve the quality of the distribution as a whole. 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). -- bye, Joerg My first contact with Linux was with SuSE 6.3. A friend of mine installed it on my pc, and just take me a couple of hours to reinstall Windows on it. -- 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
Julien BLACHE wrote: Frans Pop elen...@planet.nl 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? 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. -- 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
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. -- bye, Joerg Contrary to common belief, Arch:i386 is *not* the same as Arch: any. -- 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 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 Same thing applies for FD and AMs btw. Lucas indeed spent a few hours on doing the regular FD tasks, but went away then. If you're interested in spending several (often 10-20) hours *every* week on repeating tasks, or if you want to rewrite nm.d.o, please contact FrontDesk. Thanks, Bernd -- 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
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (24/06/2009): I do follow d-newmaint, but I don't think the reports that are sent there actually include the names of new maintainers. If you don't think, then check? http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2009/04/msg00054.html Excerpt: | Weekly Summary Statistics | = | 3 more people applied to become a new maintainer | 7 applicants became maintainers. | | New Maintainers | === | The following applicants became new maintainers last week: | Ian Beckwith i...@erislabs.net | LI Daobing lidaob...@gmail.com | Evgeni Golov sarge...@die-welt.net | Carsten Hey c@web.de | Xavier Lüthi xav...@caroxav.be | Patrick Matthäi patrick.matth...@web.de | Xavier Oswald x.osw...@free.fr Mraw, KiBi. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DAM and NEW queues processing
On 24/06/09 at 22:53 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote: 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 Same thing applies for FD and AMs btw. Lucas indeed spent a few hours on doing the regular FD tasks, but went away then. As you weren't an FD member when I proposed my help back in october, you might not be aware that I did not volunteer to do a lot more than that. Real life got in the middle of this after a few weeks, then you joined FD and have been doing some good work on triaging applicants since then, and it's not like you asked for my help. -- | 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
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:07:13PM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org (24/06/2009): I do follow d-newmaint, but I don't think the reports that are sent there actually include the names of new maintainers. If you don't think, then check? http://lists.debian.org/debian-newmaint/2009/04/msg00054.html Excerpt: | Weekly Summary Statistics | = | 3 more people applied to become a new maintainer | 7 applicants became maintainers. | New Maintainers | === | The following applicants became new maintainers last week: | Ian Beckwith i...@erislabs.net | LI Daobing lidaob...@gmail.com | Evgeni Golov sarge...@die-welt.net | Carsten Hey c@web.de | Xavier Lüthi xav...@caroxav.be | Patrick Matthäi patrick.matth...@web.de | Xavier Oswald x.osw...@free.fr 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. -- 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
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?) Don Armstrong -- Our days are precious, but we gladly see them going If in their place we find a thing more precious growing A rare, exotic plant, our gardener's heart delighting A child whom we are teaching, a booklet we are writing -- Frederick Rükert _Wisdom of the Brahmans_ [Hermann Hesse _Glass Bead Game_] 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
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? -- 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
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert a écrit : 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. Hi Joerg, You never answered to my propositions to help. 20090312013056.gb22...@kunpuu.plessy.org 20081203143858.gi10...@kunpuu.plessy.org 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? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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
Le Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery a écrit : 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. As we've already seen with previous iterations of this discussion, it's too easy to draw conclusions based on the vast majority of tiny packages and create situations that are untenable for the small number of huge packages we have. Hi Russ, I would say that on the other hand, in the absence of clear guidelines, people can be tempted to over-do the work in debian/copyright to “play safe” their upload to the NEW queue. After dozens of uploads, I have not finished to reverse-engeneer the thoughts of the our archive's managers. For instance, one of my first packages had in its source some headers where Upstream forgot LGPL statements in an otherwise GPL context. Despite that it is anyway allowed to turn LGPL into GPL, the package was not allowed in Debian until the presence of LGPL statements was properly documented in debian/copyright. Now I see in our archive xsettings-kde: it is derived from a BSDish program, xsettings, and was GPLed by dropping a copy of the GPL license in the source. The package was accepted without mentionning the BSDish license. I am all for simpler debian/copyright files, but why was I required to do more work than the maintainer of xsettings-kde? http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/x/xsettings-kde/xsettings-kde_0.9-1/xsettings-kde.copyright http://svn.mandriva.com/svn/soft/theme/xsettings-kde/trunk/ I really think that we need some clear guidelines, that of course are friendly to large packages. For instance, it was unclear in the DEP5 discussion if we only need to list the license, or if we have to indicate which files they were found in (as it is done in the example provided on the latest published guildeline, see the URL below). Can we have an answer about this? http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- 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 ple...@debian.org writes: For instance, it was unclear in the DEP5 discussion if we only need to list the license, or if we have to indicate which files they were found in (as it is done in the example provided on the latest published guildeline, see the URL below). Can we have an answer about this? 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. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
