Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Hi Lucas, * Martin Zobel-Helas (zo...@debian.org) [131202 22:11]: Hi Lucas, I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez to a full member of the team. Please update the delegation for the Debian System Administrators accordingly. Did I miss the conclusion on this? Is Héctor Orón Martínez now part of the delegated DSA team? Or do you have reasons to not make him a normal DSA member? Or do you think that the delegation is auto-updated? (Actually I think we should have our delegations so that if the current delegates add someone new, inform the DPL and -project and don't receive a veto within 6 weeks, the new person is automatically delegated as well - but I don't think our constitution nor the current delegations are explicitly allowing that, and so I would prefer an official update.) Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140104130426.gh16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Hi, On 04/01/14 at 14:04 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: Hi Lucas, * Martin Zobel-Helas (zo...@debian.org) [131202 22:11]: Hi Lucas, I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez to a full member of the team. Please update the delegation for the Debian System Administrators accordingly. Did I miss the conclusion on this? Is Héctor Orón Martínez now part of the delegated DSA team? Or do you have reasons to not make him a normal DSA member? Or do you think that the delegation is auto-updated? See https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00049.html Yes, I'm late with that. So, I've just updated the delegation to include Hector, without trying to improve the task description. Expect another mail from me later this week-end about the issues mentioned in https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00033.html (Actually I think we should have our delegations so that if the current delegates add someone new, inform the DPL and -project and don't receive a veto within 6 weeks, the new person is automatically delegated as well - but I don't think our constitution nor the current delegations are explicitly allowing that, and so I would prefer an official update.) I disagree with that, as stated in e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00032.html and https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00036.html . But that does not mean that you should not try to change the constitution to add this process. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/2014010418.ga...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
* Lucas Nussbaum (lea...@debian.org) [140104 16:30]: On 04/01/14 at 14:04 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: See https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00049.html thanks. (Actually I think we should have our delegations so that if the current delegates add someone new, inform the DPL and -project and don't receive a veto within 6 weeks, the new person is automatically delegated as well - but I don't think our constitution nor the current delegations are explicitly allowing that, and so I would prefer an official update.) I disagree with that, as stated in e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00032.html and https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/12/msg00036.html . But that does not mean that you should not try to change the constitution to add this process. Well, this doesn't convince me - but it's not important enough for me to start an GR here, or even to continue discussing about that. I could live with that. :) Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20140104163506.gi16...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 06:32:19PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: It absolutely should. The constitution stipulates that authority flows from the developers, through the DPL, to the delegated teams. To say that the DPL delegation is nothing than a rubber stamp is to say that the team does not recognize the constitutionally-defined power structures. I'm not a native English speaker so I can't comment on whether rubber stamp is an appropriate expression or not. But I definitely agree with what Steve wrote here. It's very important that any substantial extra power that a DD has wrt other DDs is tied to a delegation (and that, as such, it can be publicly revoked by the DPL if needed). The DPL is the only power in Debian that is periodically re-established via a vote among Debian citizens; it is fundamental that disparities among DD powers stems from him/her. Then, of course we can debate on what is a substantial extra power that need delegation and what is not. For one thing, I don't think that commit access to a package maintenance Git repo on alioth qualifies, especially considering that all DDs can bypass that power by doing NMUs. But I'm positive we can agree on the fact that teams like DSA, Ftp-masters, and the Release Team do have substantial more powers than DDs who are not part of those teams [1]. So, talking strictly at the level of general principles, I don't think that such teams should have the formal ability to self-delegate their powers to new team members. In practice, though, we need to be very careful of not getting in the way of working teams by imposing extra hops on how they work or, worse, trying to inflict on them team members they don't like to work with. It is important that we, as a project, have the *ability* to do that via the DPL, but I don't think we should actually *use* that ability, except in exceptional circumstances. (FWIW, I think this characterization of things should work is compatible with the explanation of rubber stamp that Ian has given in this thread. But meh, I'm an Italian living in a French-speaking country, what do I know about English linguistic subtleties :-)) Finally, I think implementing in practice the above principles, avoiding awkward threads like the beginning of this one, can be easy as long as we all adopt some simple communication best practices. Delegated teams can try to avoid announcing new team members before giving a heads up to the DPL; and the DPL can try to promptly acknowledge new team memberships as soon as they get public. This way the general rubber stamp principle is preserved and at the same time no DPL-team tensions are created. (Note: I've no idea on whether this has actually happened in this case or not. I'm only trying to address the general aspect of how core teams delegations should work.) Cheers. [1] yes, I know, the Release Team is currently not a delegated team. I think that is a bug that needs to be fixed, and I apologize for not having done that. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Former Debian Project Leader . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On Thu, December 5, 2013 02:15, Ian Jackson wrote: I would go further and say that I think it would be better to do things differently. For a team which is functioning well, it would be helpful if the DPL delegated to the team the authority over its own composition, explicitly reserving the right to intervene. That way there is no procedural problem: there is no question of someone de facto making decisions which de jure they are not empowered to make, or alternatively of having to have people wait for a rubber stamp from the DPL before getting on with useful work. Perhaps it would make sense to first more clearly define problems we want to solve with the whole delegation process, so we then know what kind of process would best address that. I see that currently the process costs the DPL quite some time while at least to me it's unclear what problem it solves for the project. Can we point to a concrete issue in the past few years that we were able to address more efficiently because delegations were in place? There are a number some teams active that perform tasks essential to Debian but are not delegated. Do we see more problems with those teams than with the delegated ones? Sometimes it seems to be bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. Cheers, Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e4ea9b8b1b625ddcc4c66b03c2b1e6b1.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Hi, On Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 17:45:22 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: 3) I was a bit surprised to see Martin's announcement that Hector was now a member of DSA, and his request to update the DSA delegation. I don't understand that. Hector has been doing a good amount of work as part of the DSA team. After he has been a trainee for half a year, I spoke with the other members (yes, that was done privatly, i need to admit) if they also think that he should become a full member. I waited until I heared back from all other members. The usual process is that the appointement of delegates is usually discussed between the DPL and the team. Of course, for well-functioning teams that propose a new delegate who already went through a training process, that discussion is rather likely to be short. But that's not a valid reason to suppress it completely and make it sound like a public demand that the DPL does the required paperwork (I'm sure that it was not Martin's intent, but it's still worth clarifying, I think). My intent was to be as open as possible in the decission we have taken. As Joerg wrote, I think uncontroversial changes to functional teams have never been a problem for an update of a DPL delegation. Is the DSA team a non-functional team? Cheers, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.orgDebian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer Debian Listmaster http://about.me/zobel Debian Webmaster GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131205095324.ga5...@ftbfs.de
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On 05/12/13 at 09:35 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Thu, December 5, 2013 02:15, Ian Jackson wrote: I would go further and say that I think it would be better to do things differently. For a team which is functioning well, it would be helpful if the DPL delegated to the team the authority over its own composition, explicitly reserving the right to intervene. That way there is no procedural problem: there is no question of someone de facto making decisions which de jure they are not empowered to make, or alternatively of having to have people wait for a rubber stamp from the DPL before getting on with useful work. Perhaps it would make sense to first more clearly define problems we want to solve with the whole delegation process, so we then know what kind of process would best address that. I see that currently the process costs the DPL quite some time while at least to me it's unclear what problem it solves for the project. Can we point to a concrete issue in the past few years that we were able to address more efficiently because delegations were in place? Hi, This was discussed in https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00018.html. Main points are: * it facilitates the monitoring of the team manpower, which helps taking proactive actions before things get too difficult. * it provides a place to clearly define what are the roles, responsibilities, powers of the team. * it's a rather lightweight process when things work well. It's bureaucratic, yes, but not so expensive bureaucracy. There are a number some teams active that perform tasks essential to Debian but are not delegated. Do we see more problems with those teams than with the delegated ones? Which ones are you thinking about? (the release team is not delegated yet, though this is a long running pending task, and there's a draft already). Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131205104623.ga28...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On 05/12/13 at 10:53 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: Hi, On Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 17:45:22 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: 3) I was a bit surprised to see Martin's announcement that Hector was now a member of DSA, and his request to update the DSA delegation. I don't understand that. Hector has been doing a good amount of work as part of the DSA team. After he has been a trainee for half a year, I spoke with the other members (yes, that was done privatly, i need to admit) if they also think that he should become a full member. I waited until I heared back from all other members. The usual process is that the appointement of delegates is usually discussed between the DPL and the team. Of course, for well-functioning teams that propose a new delegate who already went through a training process, that discussion is rather likely to be short. But that's not a valid reason to suppress it completely and make it sound like a public demand that the DPL does the required paperwork (I'm sure that it was not Martin's intent, but it's still worth clarifying, I think). My intent was to be as open as possible in the decission we have taken. As Joerg wrote, I think uncontroversial changes to functional teams have never been a problem for an update of a DPL delegation. Is the DSA team a non-functional team? I wouldn't say that. I think that the general opinion inside the project is that it's functioning quite well, well, or very well, depending on who you ask. However, there has recently been a number of events where there seem to have been communication problems between DSA and the rest of project (service developers not engaging with DSA early during the design process; service developers engaging with DSA late, and then having difficult conversations; failed contact between service maintainers and DSA about service moves, ...). And as a result, several people gave up on hosting services they maintain inside Debian infrastructure. I think that it's important for Debian to provide an environment for experimenting ideas on infrastructure, designing new services, etc. Ideally, I think that this should happen on Debian infrastructure managed by DSA, because (1) it facilitates collaborative service maintenance; (2) it's better when people focus on what they are doing best, and we don't have a infinite supply of expert sysadmins. So I'm trying to see if something can be done to improve the current status. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131205104522.ga28...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Hi, On Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 11:45:22 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 05/12/13 at 10:53 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: Hi, On Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 17:45:22 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: 3) I was a bit surprised to see Martin's announcement that Hector was now a member of DSA, and his request to update the DSA delegation. I don't understand that. Hector has been doing a good amount of work as part of the DSA team. After he has been a trainee for half a year, I spoke with the other members (yes, that was done privatly, i need to admit) if they also think that he should become a full member. I waited until I heared back from all other members. The usual process is that the appointement of delegates is usually discussed between the DPL and the team. Of course, for well-functioning teams that propose a new delegate who already went through a training process, that discussion is rather likely to be short. But that's not a valid reason to suppress it completely and make it sound like a public demand that the DPL does the required paperwork (I'm sure that it was not Martin's intent, but it's still worth clarifying, I think). My intent was to be as open as possible in the decission we have taken. As Joerg wrote, I think uncontroversial changes to functional teams have never been a problem for an update of a DPL delegation. Is the DSA team a non-functional team? I wouldn't say that. I think that the general opinion inside the project is that it's functioning quite well, well, or very well, depending on who you ask. However, there has recently been a number of events where there seem to have been communication problems between DSA and the rest of project (service developers not engaging with DSA early during the design process; service developers engaging with DSA late, and then having difficult conversations; failed contact between service maintainers and DSA about service moves, ...). And as a result, several people gave up on hosting services they maintain inside Debian infrastructure. I think that it's important for Debian to provide an environment for experimenting ideas on infrastructure, designing new services, etc. Ideally, I think that this should happen on Debian infrastructure managed by DSA, because (1) it facilitates collaborative service maintenance; (2) it's better when people focus on what they are doing best, and we don't have a infinite supply of expert sysadmins. So I'm trying to see if something can be done to improve the current status. I am going to write down the minimal service infrastructure requirements that DSA have and i will publish it here on the list. Maybe that helps all of the project when discussing about new services with DSA. I also encourage to project (or the corresponding service owners) to help us having a census about services. I think we should do that on debian-services-ad...@lists.debian.org, a mailing list which was created years ago for exactly that purpose (to have one single contact point for both DSA and 'service owners'). Cheers, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.orgDebian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer Debian Listmaster http://about.me/zobel Debian Webmaster GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On Thu, December 5, 2013 11:46, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: This was discussed in https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00018.html. Main points are: * it facilitates the monitoring of the team manpower, which helps taking proactive actions before things get too difficult. * it provides a place to clearly define what are the roles, responsibilities, powers of the team. * it's a rather lightweight process when things work well. It's bureaucratic, yes, but not so expensive bureaucracy. These arguments are all inherently bureaucratic in nature (monitoring, defining responsibilities). That's not bad per se, if it can be justified that this form of monitoring or formal responsibility determination actually solved concrete issues. Since you skipped my request for concrete examples, I'm assuming you also haven't seen such cases :) I find it more likely that monitoring in the sense that people perceive trouble when interacting with a team is much more indicative of a problem than monitoring through the process of updating delegations. I'm not convinced that the work done on all these delegations is a net win. There are a number some teams active that perform tasks essential to Debian but are not delegated. Do we see more problems with those teams than with the delegated ones? Which ones are you thinking about? (the release team is not delegated yet, though this is a long running pending task, and there's a draft already). I'd rather not say for fear of more busywork ;-) Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/76eb12cecd3c0e6f40ffc070f53d36cc.squir...@aphrodite.kinkhorst.nl
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On 05/12/13 at 13:46 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: On Thu, December 5, 2013 11:46, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: This was discussed in https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00018.html. Main points are: * it facilitates the monitoring of the team manpower, which helps taking proactive actions before things get too difficult. * it provides a place to clearly define what are the roles, responsibilities, powers of the team. * it's a rather lightweight process when things work well. It's bureaucratic, yes, but not so expensive bureaucracy. These arguments are all inherently bureaucratic in nature (monitoring, defining responsibilities). That's not bad per se, if it can be justified that this form of monitoring or formal responsibility determination actually solved concrete issues. Since you skipped my request for concrete examples, I'm assuming you also haven't seen such cases :) I don't think that delegations solve any problem per se. They are a tool that facilitate the monitoring of key teams in the project. Obviously, from the DPL POV, the goal should not be to focus on the bureaucracy side, but rather on having well-functioning key teams. I am convinced that delegations help with making sure that teams stay functional, and I'd assume that Stefano agrees given the amount of work he put during his three terms into clarifying the roles of teams, and delegating additional teams. I'm not convinced that the work done on all these delegations is a net win. I am. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131205132105.ga3...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:35:38AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: But the main point here is that the team should normally be able to manage its membership directly. I couldn't disagree more. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131205133504.ga9...@scru.org
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: Please update the DSA delegation): On 05/12/13 at 09:35 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Perhaps it would make sense to first more clearly define problems we want to solve with the whole delegation process, [...] ... This was discussed in https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00018.html. Lucas, I'm concerned that you apparently have time to debate the merits of our approach to delegates, but unless I'm mistaken you haven't found time to simply say yes to Hector's promotion to a full member of the DSA team. Is there some reason (besides lack of DPL team attention, and besides some wider questions about what exactly the delegation should consist of) why Hector should not be appointed immediately ? If there is such a reason please say that you are considering the merits of the appointment. Otherwise please would you confirm it immediately. Delaying your confirmation of this appointment is not a way to strengthen the constitutional process. Rather, it weakens it by bringing it into disrepute. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21152.36140.295232.494...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Martin Zobel-Helas writes (Re: Please update the DSA delegation): On Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 17:45:22 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: 3) I was a bit surprised to see Martin's announcement that Hector was now a member of DSA, and his request to update the DSA delegation. I don't understand that. Hector has been doing a good amount of work as part of the DSA team. After he has been a trainee for half a year, I spoke with the other members (yes, that was done privatly, i need to admit) if they also think that he should become a full member. I waited until I heared back from all other members. Constitutionally speaking, appointments are made by the DPL unless the decision on appointments has itself been delegated. So you should have involved the DPL in these discussions (whether they were private or not). I would have hoped that the DPL would have provided a useful contribution to the discussion and that there wouldn't have had to be any kind of argument. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21152.37659.710926.126...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
* Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [2013-12-05 03:32:19 CET]: In most cases, well-functioning teams will make non-controversial nominations, and the DPL will accept them without question. But that's *not* the same thing as the delegation being a rubber stamp. Maybe I get you wrong - and maybe you got Lucas wrong - but are you implying that Hector is a controversial nomination? Where did I miss that part? From what I read in Lucas initial response to Martin, it was about general communication issues with the (current) DSA team (wheter or not that might be true), not with Hector specificly. The way you phrase it makes it rather sound that Hector is a controversial nomination? Is this the case? Rhonda -- Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los | Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los| Wir sind Helden Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los| -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131205145342.ga4...@anguilla.debian.or.at
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Tollef Fog Heen writes (Re: Please update the DSA delegation): I would prefer if we could just self-manage and not have even more process around routine changes. Debian generally has more than its share of process already and we should not actively work towards adding more formalism and red tape. I agree. And this is how things have been done in the past, de facto, whether or not the formal process has been followed. Where teams have had problems, it generally hasn't been that they have been appointing inappropriate people. It has been that they have been too slow to train up and admit new members. More bureaucracy in appointments doesn't help IMO. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21152.37818.647384.503...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Gerfried Fuchs writes (Re: Please update the DSA delegation): Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [2013-12-05 03:32:19 CET]: In most cases, well-functioning teams will make non-controversial nominations, and the DPL will accept them without question. But that's *not* the same thing as the delegation being a rubber stamp. Maybe I get you wrong - and maybe you got Lucas wrong - but are you implying that Hector is a controversial nomination? Where did I miss that part? From what I read in Lucas initial response to Martin, it was about general communication issues with the (current) DSA team (wheter or not that might be true), not with Hector specificly. The way you phrase it makes it rather sound that Hector is a controversial nomination? Perhaps we are just having a misunderstanding of the phrase rubber stamp. What I meant to say is that (even if the DPL hasn't explicitly asked the team to manage its own membership) when things are working reasonably well I would expect the DPL to routinely and quickly approve uncontroversial appointments (if I may borrow your word). I'm not saying that the DPL doesn't have a discretion. To me the phrase rubber stamp means an approval which in principle could be withheld but which we all predict will be granted (and, probably, granted without a deep investigation of the issues). It seems to me that Hector's appointment to DSA ought to fall in this category, unless there's something going on that I'm missing. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21152.38130.922587.186...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On 05/12/13 at 14:26 +, Ian Jackson wrote: Lucas Nussbaum writes (Re: Please update the DSA delegation): On 05/12/13 at 09:35 +0100, Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Perhaps it would make sense to first more clearly define problems we want to solve with the whole delegation process, [...] ... This was discussed in https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2013/05/msg00018.html. Lucas, I'm concerned that you apparently have time to debate the merits of our approach to delegates, but unless I'm mistaken you haven't found time to simply say yes to Hector's promotion to a full member of the DSA team. Is there some reason (besides lack of DPL team attention, and besides some wider questions about what exactly the delegation should consist of) why Hector should not be appointed immediately ? If there is such a reason please say that you are considering the merits of the appointment. Otherwise please would you confirm it immediately. At this point, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't eventually delegate Hector, in an update of the DSA delegation. On 05/12/13 at 15:53 +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: Maybe I get you wrong - and maybe you got Lucas wrong - but are you implying that Hector is a controversial nomination? Where did I miss that part? From what I read in Lucas initial response to Martin, it was about general communication issues with the (current) DSA team (wheter or not that might be true), not with Hector specificly. The way you phrase it makes it rather sound that Hector is a controversial nomination? At this point, I have no reason to believe that it's controversial. Now, please, can I go back to work? (I'm ignoring the questioning on my use of my time, and the comment on the lack of DPL team attention) Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131205162710.ga7...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 03:53:42PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: * Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org [2013-12-05 03:32:19 CET]: In most cases, well-functioning teams will make non-controversial nominations, and the DPL will accept them without question. But that's *not* the same thing as the delegation being a rubber stamp. Maybe I get you wrong - and maybe you got Lucas wrong - but are you implying that Hector is a controversial nomination? No, I am not. I don't have an informed opinion on whether Hector should or shouldn't be made part of DSA; I was only responding to Joerg's characterization of the delegation process, which implied that the DPL is a figurehead who didn't need to be consulted before changes were made to delegated teams. I.e., Joerg's description is problematic not for how it handles the controversial cases, but for how it handles the non-controversial ones. -- 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Hello, 2013/12/5 Lucas Nussbaum lu...@debian.org: At this point, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't eventually delegate Hector, in an update of the DSA delegation. At this point, I have no reason to believe that it's controversial. Thanks for making this point clear! 2013/12/4 Tollef Fog Heen tfh...@err.no: ]] Martin Zobel-Helas Welcome to the team, Héctor! Thanks! :-) -- Héctor Orón -.. . -... .. .- -. -.. . ...- . .-.. --- .--. . .-. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAODfWeEEPPP8ags7ow8rdoThNY4xVR6aBA=tfrfhp5krogk...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Hi Lucas, Hi Lucas, I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez to a full member of the team. I think that this mail must have been misinterpreted. It was not meant to be a demand. I was happy to share that we had recruited zumbi. He's been working with us in one form or another for over three years now and is very experienced with porter workflow and helped a lot recently within the arm community. Within the last year he has shared more and more of our duties and my colleagues and I thought it high time that he not only be part of the team, but that he also be recognized by the project as such. My colleagues and I are very excited to have him onboard. Please rest assured that no offense was intended. Best regards, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.orgDebian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer Debian Listmaster http://about.me/zobel Debian Webmaster GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Hi Martin, On 05/12/13 at 23:03 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: Hi Lucas, Hi Lucas, I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez to a full member of the team. I think that this mail must have been misinterpreted. It was not meant to be a demand. I was happy to share that we had recruited zumbi. He's been working with us in one form or another for over three years now and is very experienced with porter workflow and helped a lot recently within the arm community. Within the last year he has shared more and more of our duties and my colleagues and I thought it high time that he not only be part of the team, but that he also be recognized by the project as such. My colleagues and I are very excited to have him onboard. Please rest assured that no offense was intended. Thank you for this clarification. As said in other emails, I'm sligthly backlogged due to some travel and am travelling again next week, and I would prefer to factor in this update the outcome of the current discussion with DSA. But I will get to delegating Hector soon (very likely before the end of 2013). Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Hi I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez to a full member of the team. Please update the delegation for the Debian System Administrators accordingly. I'd rather wait until we see where our current (private) conversation is going, as the job description could be updated/clarified as a result. There are two ways to interpret this. One is that one simple wants to avoid a mostly doubled mail to d-d-a, now delegating Hector, when there is going to be a change to the role of DSA upcoming anyways. Which may be the case if the role of DSA changed since the last delegation, to have the delegation reflect reality. The other is that Hector is used as a way to pressure DSA into accepting a role change they may otherwise not accept or have given reasons why it is wrong to do so. Now, I have no idea how that private discussion looks like, so I can only base my observation on what I see of DSAs works and the old delegation text. Which doesn't look like the role really changed? May I ask what I miss? Thanks. -- bye Joerg -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/d132ec73eb612b1485603d53a673e...@mail.ganneff.de
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On 04/12/13 at 14:58 +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: Hi I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez to a full member of the team. Please update the delegation for the Debian System Administrators accordingly. I'd rather wait until we see where our current (private) conversation is going, as the job description could be updated/clarified as a result. There are two ways to interpret this. One is that one simple wants to avoid a mostly doubled mail to d-d-a, now delegating Hector, when there is going to be a change to the role of DSA upcoming anyways. Which may be the case if the role of DSA changed since the last delegation, to have the delegation reflect reality. The other is that Hector is used as a way to pressure DSA into accepting a role change they may otherwise not accept or have given reasons why it is wrong to do so. Now, I have no idea how that private discussion looks like, so I can only base my observation on what I see of DSAs works and the old delegation text. Which doesn't look like the role really changed? May I ask what I miss? Over the last months, I was contacted by DDs about several issues involving DSA (which doesn't mean they are fault). I initiated a discussion with DSA to try to understand how we could improve things (at this point, my limited understanding is that it's mainly communication problems). The discussion is ongoing. A delegation is a good opportunity to clarify interactions between a team and the rest of the project, so I'd rather factor this in, if relevant. Three other comments: 1) As I explained on -private@ a few weeks ago, I'm slightly backlogged, and I'm not sure why you think that this delegation should be prioritized compared to other pending tasks, especially given that it's not blocking Hector's work (according to LDAP, DSA did not wait for the delegation to give Hector effective DSA powers -- I suppose that he already was a member of the adm group during his time as a DSA trainee). 2) As said numerous times, I would love to get more help with other DPL-related tasks, so that I would be able to update delegations in less than 48 hours. The next DPL helpers meeting is on 2013-12-16 at 18:00 UTC. 3) I was a bit surprised to see Martin's announcement that Hector was now a member of DSA, and his request to update the DSA delegation. The usual process is that the appointement of delegates is usually discussed between the DPL and the team. Of course, for well-functioning teams that propose a new delegate who already went through a training process, that discussion is rather likely to be short. But that's not a valid reason to suppress it completely and make it sound like a public demand that the DPL does the required paperwork (I'm sure that it was not Martin's intent, but it's still worth clarifying, I think). Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131204164522.ga19...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Now, I have no idea how that private discussion looks like, so I can only base my observation on what I see of DSAs works and the old delegation text. Which doesn't look like the role really changed? May I ask what I miss? Over the last months, I was contacted by DDs about several issues involving DSA (which doesn't mean they are fault). I initiated a discussion with DSA to try to understand how we could improve things (at this point, my limited understanding is that it's mainly communication problems). The discussion is ongoing. A delegation is a good opportunity to clarify interactions between a team and the rest of the project, so I'd rather factor this in, if relevant. Uh, a delegation is about responsibilities of the team, not how that team interacts with the project? (Unless the delegation itself happens to be about just that). Yes, most teams works do need interactions with the rest of the project, and given the role that DSA has, they do have a lot of that. Yet I don't see how that affects the delegation. 1) As I explained on -private@ a few weeks ago, I'm slightly backlogged, and I'm not sure why you think that this delegation should be prioritized compared to other pending tasks, I did not say that at all. If you would have replied with something along Bit busy now, will get to that soon there wouldn't have been any question. What I asked is plain about the different meanings one can take out of your reply. 2) As said numerous times, I would love to get more help with other DPL-related tasks, so that I would be able to update delegations in less than 48 hours. The next DPL helpers meeting is on 2013-12-16 at 18:00 UTC. You have the same problem about any other team in Debian has - limited supply of volunteers. 3) I was a bit surprised to see Martin's announcement that Hector was now a member of DSA, and his request to update the DSA delegation. The usual process is that the appointement of delegates is usually discussed between the DPL and the team. Of course, for well-functioning teams that propose a new delegate who already went through a training process, that discussion is rather likely to be short. But that's not a valid reason to suppress it completely and make it sound like a public demand that the DPL does the required paperwork (I'm sure that it was not Martin's intent, but it's still worth clarifying, I think). Really. Interesting. Honestly, for functional teams the DPL is nothing but putting his stamp on team changes the team wants. It shouldn't be anything else there. If I remember correctly the DPL learned about the last ftpmaster promotion around 2 weeks after it happened.[1] Non-functional ones are a different thing, but we are lucky that they are extremely seldom. And DSA may be some things, but sure not non-functional. [1] Though that had some bits to do with the timing and circumstances around it, but its pretty normal to first have things decided in team and then have DPL (and project) informed. -- bye, Joerg Die Dicke zum Spiegel: Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand, wer ist die Schönste im ganzen Land? Der Spiegel: Geh doch mal weg, ich kann ja gar nichts sehen! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87k3fk2s1h@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
]] Martin Zobel-Helas Welcome to the team, Héctor! - Maintaining the central user (LDAP) database listing all the Debian developers. This includes: I don't think the delegation should specify the technology for handling user accounts. If we want to switch to another technology, that shouldn't require any changes in the delegation. [...] - Setting up and administering Debian-owned machines, ensuring that they are kept secure, operational, and running. Technically, Debian doesn't own anything, yadayada. Not sure what a better phrasing might be. [...] - complete install requests for porter chroots This isn't really done by us any longer, since it's self-service so should probably be dropped. -- Tollef Fog Heen 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fvq8z43t@xoog.err.no
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Joerg Jaspert writes (Re: Please update the DSA delegation): [Lucas:] 3) I was a bit surprised to see Martin's announcement that Hector was now a member of DSA, and his request to update the DSA delegation. The usual process is that the appointement of delegates is usually discussed between the DPL and the team. Of course, for well-functioning teams that propose a new delegate who already went through a training process, that discussion is rather likely to be short. But that's not a valid reason to suppress it completely and make it sound like a public demand that the DPL does the required paperwork (I'm sure that it was not Martin's intent, but it's still worth clarifying, I think). Really. Interesting. Honestly, for functional teams the DPL is nothing but putting his stamp on team changes the team wants. It shouldn't be anything else there. If I remember correctly the DPL learned about the last ftpmaster promotion around 2 weeks after it happened.[1] The correct process doesn't depend on whether the team is functional or not. After all, the latter might be a matter of subjective opinion, or disputed. And as it stands Lucas is right about the correct order of events. But, I also agree with some of the sentiments in Joerg's mail. If indeed it is desirable to update the delegation text for DSA then I think that should be separated from routine team changes. Both because there is a risk that it might appear otherwise to be a way of applying pressure, and because rubber stamping a routine team change for team which is working satisfactorily should be just a matter of saying yes. DSA can go and write the announcement. I would go further and say that I think it would be better to do things differently. For a team which is functioning well, it would be helpful if the DPL delegated to the team the authority over its own composition, explicitly reserving the right to intervene. That way there is no procedural problem: there is no question of someone de facto making decisions which de jure they are not empowered to make, or alternatively of having to have people wait for a rubber stamp from the DPL before getting on with useful work. But for now I think Lucas should simply say to DDA promoting Hector is fine, please go and tell d-d-a; we will carry on with the delegation update of course. Thanks, Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21151.54222.70979.368...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:15:58AM +, Ian Jackson wrote: [...] For a team which is functioning well, it would be helpful if the DPL delegated to the team the authority over its own composition, explicitly reserving the right to intervene. [...] If I remember my Debian Constitution correctly, the DPL can delegate *developers* to preform actions they would otherwise preform, or make decisions the DPL can't directly. I think the only legal way to do this would be to delegate a developer on that team the ability to re-delegate members of a team (e.g. you can't delegate the team, you'd have to delegate a person to delegate the team) On a related note, I think I've set the record for delegate / email content to date with this email. As for if Lucas wants to do this (nay, if this is even a good idea) is something left to the reader, I think. Cheers, Paul -- .''`. Paul Tagliamonte paul...@debian.org | Proud Debian Developer : :' : 4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352 D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87 `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~paultag `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag/conduct-statement.txt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Paul Tagliamonte writes (Re: Please update the DSA delegation): I think the only legal way to do this would be to delegate a developer on that team the ability to re-delegate members of a team (e.g. you can't delegate the team, you'd have to delegate a person to delegate the team) Formally speaking, team delegations are delegations to listed individuals. In my proposal, the delegation would simply explicitly grant the delegates the power to make onward delegations (and state that any such onward delegations should be taken to survive the departure of the granting delegate). But the main point here is that the team should normally be able to manage its membership directly. That's how these things have often been done (sometimes with no explicit DPL rubber stamp, even). (Of course if a team has a problem, the DPL can have a discussion and perhaps directly add people, but that's the unusual case.) Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/21151.55402.183231.306...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
Le Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:35:38AM +, Ian Jackson a écrit : But the main point here is that the team should normally be able to manage its membership directly. That's how these things have often been done (sometimes with no explicit DPL rubber stamp, even). I think that we need both. While the DPL is not the best person to bring new members to the team, it is the best person to ensure that the team does not accumulate too many inactive or barely active members. I think that such teams are dysfunctional, because they look overstaffed while at the same time they suffer from the lack of manpower. Also, the presence of old-timers who have just enough time to press the stop button from time to time but no time for the grunt work can be quite intimidating. If membership is fluid, there is no need to keep a title just in case, and I would prefer the DPL to be actively questionning memberships each time the delegation is renewed. Cheers, -- 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131205015329.gg15...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 11:02:50PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote: 3) I was a bit surprised to see Martin's announcement that Hector was now a member of DSA, and his request to update the DSA delegation. The usual process is that the appointement of delegates is usually discussed between the DPL and the team. Of course, for well-functioning teams that propose a new delegate who already went through a training process, that discussion is rather likely to be short. But that's not a valid reason to suppress it completely and make it sound like a public demand that the DPL does the required paperwork (I'm sure that it was not Martin's intent, but it's still worth clarifying, I think). Really. Interesting. Honestly, for functional teams the DPL is nothing but putting his stamp on team changes the team wants. It shouldn't be anything else there. It absolutely should. The constitution stipulates that authority flows from the developers, through the DPL, to the delegated teams. To say that the DPL delegation is nothing than a rubber stamp is to say that the team does not recognize the constitutionally-defined power structures. In most cases, well-functioning teams will make non-controversial nominations, and the DPL will accept them without question. But that's *not* the same thing as the delegation being a rubber stamp. If I remember correctly the DPL learned about the last ftpmaster promotion around 2 weeks after it happened.[1] If the ftp team is a delegated team, then this is a miscarriage of Debian procedure. -- 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 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
]] Charles Plessy Le Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 01:35:38AM +, Ian Jackson a écrit : But the main point here is that the team should normally be able to manage its membership directly. That's how these things have often been done (sometimes with no explicit DPL rubber stamp, even). I think that we need both. While the DPL is not the best person to bring new members to the team, it is the best person to ensure that the team does not accumulate too many inactive or barely active members. No, the DPL is not in a good place to do that. How is the DPL to know which of the DSA members who are active and not? If membership is fluid, there is no need to keep a title just in case, and I would prefer the DPL to be actively questionning memberships each time the delegation is renewed. I would prefer if we could just self-manage and not have even more process around routine changes. Debian generally has more than its share of process already and we should not actively work towards adding more formalism and red tape. -- Tollef Fog Heen 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 Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bo0vzszw@xoog.err.no
Re: Please update the DSA delegation
On 02/12/13 at 22:11 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote: Hi Lucas, I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez to a full member of the team. Please update the delegation for the Debian System Administrators accordingly. Hi, I'd rather wait until we see where our current (private) conversation is going, as the job description could be updated/clarified as a result. Lucas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Please update the DSA delegation
Hi Lucas, I am pleased to announce that DSA has promoted Héctor Orón Martínez to a full member of the team. Please update the delegation for the Debian System Administrators accordingly. Here's a proposed text for this delegation: [Text taken from old delegation at https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/10/msg2.html] DSA delegation == I hereby appoint the following developers as members of the Debian System Administrators (DSA) team: - Faidon Liambotis (paravoid) - Héctor Orón Martínez (zumbi) - Luca Filipozzi (lfilipoz) - Martin Zobel-Helas (zobel) - Peter Palfrader (weasel) - Stephen Gran (sgran) - Tollef Fog Heen (tfheen) Any previous delegation to the same team, not explicitly listed above, is revoked. The delegation is not time-limited. It will be effective until further changes by present or future DPLs. Job Description --- Debian System Administrator team members handle the basic infrastructure of the project. They are responsible for tasks that include: - Maintaining the central user (LDAP) database listing all the Debian developers. This includes: - account creation and deletion based on requests from the Debian Account Managers - correlation of GPG keys to the according accounts based on requests from the Debian Keyring Maintainers - Setting up and administering Debian-owned machines, ensuring that they are kept secure, operational, and running. - Coordinating with local admins of the machines regarding network connectivity and (if needed) asking for remote hands - Granting required rights to other developers who need them to maintain a particular service - Handle standard services like the debian.org email alias that each developer has or keeping DNS up to date - complete install requests for porter chroots - maintaining the Debian Machine Usage Policies (DMUP), within the following limits: - the DMUP cannot directly cause the expulsion of a developer from the project; it can however propose the developer for expulsion to DAM, on the basis of DMUP violation - changes to the DMUP shall be announced to the debian-devel-announce mailing list at least 2 months in advance with respect to when they are supposed to become effective All the above information, with a reference to the present delegation, will shortly be available at http://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DSA. Merci d'avance d'envoyer ce texte, Martin -- Martin Zobel-Helas zo...@debian.orgDebian System Administrator Debian GNU/Linux Developer Debian Listmaster http://about.me/zobel Debian Webmaster GPG Fingerprint: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B signature.asc Description: Digital signature
