Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:11:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Richard Hecker wrote: While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic? No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then wait another month. I don't see the point in it being reviewed twice if FD has no say in the final decision and his only task is to check that everything is complete. In practice this should only be a problem if the FD check is causing DAM queue starvation. But then, if the DAM gets ahead of FD, there's no reason they couldn't step in and pull directly from the FD queue, right? The converse, giving FD the same powers of DAM, is an expansion of the powers of the FD members which I don't see justification for. If the DAM thought the FD members were ready to be DAM, they could just as well propose themselves that they should be added as DAM. I definitely *don't* agree that there's justification for automatically merging the FD into DAM. -- 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: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
Steve Langasek wrote: On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:11:08PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then wait another month. I don't see the point in it being reviewed twice if FD has no say in the final decision and his only task is to check that everything is complete. In practice this should only be a problem if the FD check is causing DAM queue starvation. But then, if the DAM gets ahead of FD, there's no reason they couldn't step in and pull directly from the FD queue, right? The converse, giving FD the same powers of DAM, is an expansion of the powers of the FD members which I don't see justification for. If the DAM thought the FD members were ready to be DAM, they could just as well propose themselves that they should be added as DAM. I definitely *don't* agree that there's justification for automatically merging the FD into DAM. OK, you have a point. However, as long as one of the teams (e.g. FD) stops duplicating the same task, and the other one is added more members, the result should be the same. Of course it may not be that easy to find new victims for the position... Emilio P.S.: not saying the FD or DAM are doing a bad job, it's just that duplicating the same task seems like a wasted effort to my eyes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
On Fri Jul 03 10:54, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: I definitely *don't* agree that there's justification for automatically merging the FD into DAM. OK, you have a point. However, as long as one of the teams (e.g. FD) stops duplicating the same task, and the other one is added more members, the result should be the same. Of course it may not be that easy to find new victims for the position... The point is they aren't duplicating the same task. DAM reviews and approves applications. FD does superficial checks to filter out technically incorrect applications so that DAM doesn't have to do those and doesn't waste time on those applications. As Steve says, that's only a bottleneck if DAM is blocking on getting applications from FD and in that case there's no reason for them not to pull them from the FD stage directly, assuming that's possible. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
In the midst of the huge discussion started at [1], a specific
proposal [2] did not appear to have received much counter arguments,
namely: merging DAM with FD (both CC-ed).
I advanced that proposal because I consider it offers the following
advantages:
- less bureaucracy: the _decision_ about whether to create an account
or not is a single step without dossiers passing from FD to DAM with
shared responsibility
- no cold start in the review process of an applicant by DAM: a
member of the new team might remember the applicant from a
previous step (e.g. advocate checks)
- enlarge DAM team: currently they are just two people, which de facto
already receive help from FD in accepting new developers; in the new
situation that help can then be used also for other DAM tasks
I believe that there is agreement among the teams there is no other
need to decide anything else. I felt the need to re-raise this topic
because I believe it's an easy way to get rid of some bureaucracy and
because I have the impression there might be consensus on that. Is
that so?
Cheers.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/06/msg00024.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/06/msg00056.html
--
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: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
Richard Hecker wrote: While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic? No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then wait another month. I don't see the point in it being reviewed twice if FD has no say in the final decision and his only task is to check that everything is complete. Of course we could keep the status quo, but it seems to me merging DAM and FD would do no harm and a lot of benefit (or if you want it another way, removing the step of FD checking the application after the AM report, and adding more people to the DAM). Cheers, Emilio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:53:16AM -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: In the midst of the huge discussion started at [1], a specific proposal [2] did not appear to have received much counter arguments, namely: merging DAM with FD (both CC-ed). snip... Lack of people vociferously objecting does not imply consent. I believe that there is agreement among the teams there is no other need to decide anything else. I felt the need to re-raise this topic because I believe it's an easy way to get rid of some bureaucracy and because I have the impression there might be consensus on that. Is that so? Cheers. [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/06/msg00024.html [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2009/06/msg00056.html While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic? TTBOMK the split was done because it helped take some pressure of elmo's shoulder. It never worked that well in the end as it rather added more buffer effects to processing, so in the end, yes, it rather adds bureaucracy to the whole thing. OTOH, I'm not sure merging DAM and FD is something that will change the frace from NM, but for sure, it's a step in the good direction. -- Intersec http://www.intersec.com Pierre Habouzit pierre.habou...@intersec.com Tél : +33 (0)1 5570 3346 Mob : +33 (0)6 1636 8131 Fax : +33 (0)1 5570 3332 37 Rue Pierre Lhomme 92400 Courbevoie signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 07:34:12PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
OTOH, I'm not sure merging DAM and FD is something that will change
the frace from NM, but for sure, it's a step in the good direction.
Ah, right, I forgot to add this disclaimer to the first post. I've
never claimed, nor believed, that this is the ultimate NM improvement;
it just looks like to be an easy step, with the potentiality of
getting rid of some delays that our applicants do not understand.
Thanks fo reminding me of 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: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Richard Hecker wrote: While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic? No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then wait another month. I don't see the point in it being reviewed twice if FD has no say in the final decision and his only task is to check that everything is complete. In this community, do you really want to suggest we have too many eyes looking for problems? Of course we could keep the status quo, but it seems to me merging DAM and FD would do no harm and a lot of benefit (or if you want it another way, removing the step of FD checking the application after the AM report, and adding more people to the DAM). Cheers, Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
Richard Hecker wrote: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then wait another month. I don't see the point in it being reviewed twice if FD has no say in the final decision and his only task is to check that everything is complete. In this community, do you really want to suggest we have too many eyes looking for problems? Do you want to re-review all the GNOME packages before we upload them to the archive? Do you want to re-review the packages that go through the NEW queue after the ftpmasters approve them? Then why do you want two teams looking at new applicants? Emilio signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
On Thu, 02 Jul 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Richard Hecker wrote: While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic? No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then wait another month. I don't see the point in it being reviewed twice if FD has no say in the final decision and his only task is to check that everything is complete. The main point is that the task has historically been more parallizable at the FD point than at the DAM point; DAM is a delegation, and the FD is not. (And since FD has the DAM as a backstop, there's not as much scrutiny[1] in adding new people to that position.) Thus, it's better to catch problems and solve them at the FD stage instead of waiting until they reach the DAM. That said, the obvious solution to this issue is to get more poeple who have the time and desire to be FD/DAM involved and demonstrate ability. Don Armstrong -- I don't care how poor and inefficient a little country is; they like to run their own business. I know men that would make my wife a better husband than I am; but, darn it, I'm not going to give her to 'em. -- The Best of Will Rogers 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: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Don't you think that there's some sense in listening to what Emilio says, whithout immediately minimizing his arguments, since he has already been at least 4 times more useful to Debian than you were during the last 8 years? - Lucas I did listen. That is why it was obvious to me that he was promoting having less eyes review an application. By your metric, he is at least 4 times more useful to Debian but I can choose my own metric. I think quality is more important than quantity (in most instances). If your argument for quantity was the standard, Sven Luther would be honored for all his contributions to our mailing lists. In 2001 I was in the NM queue with Eray and it taught me that at times it is best to mind your own little contribution without pushing to correct the 'flaws in the system.' From the perspective of a person more concerned about their own contributions, it was logically significant that Lack of people vociferously objecting does not imply consent. It may be useless by your standards, but I will now go back to my silent contribution mode. Richard -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: so ... let's merge DAM and FD?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 02-07-2009 18:15, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: On 02/07/09 at 12:05 -0700, Richard Hecker wrote: Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote: Richard Hecker wrote: While consensus might exist that eliminating bureaucracy is good, division of labor can be a good thing too. I do not think you have established the need to combine the FD and DAM tasks. Are you claiming the DAMs are too bureaucratic? No, what is bureaucratic is having to wait one month for FD to review one application, just to say `hey it's complete`, and pass it to the DAM. Then wait another month. I don't see the point in it being reviewed twice if FD has no say in the final decision and his only task is to check that everything is complete. In this community, do you really want to suggest we have too many eyes looking for problems? Seriously, Richard. You became a DD in 2001, and since then, you have only done 17 uploads on 3 different packages (last one in 2007, on the only package you maintain: set6x86). Emilio isn't a DD yet, and has already been in the Changed-By: field of 80 uploads. And given that for most of them it was work done inside the GNOME team, he probably touched a lot more packages. Don't you think that there's some sense in listening to what Emilio says, whithout immediately minimizing his arguments, since he has already been at least 4 times more useful to Debian than you were during the last 8 years? I found a little bit hard to measure usefulness based on number of uploads and I don't think that this line of answer of minimizing somebody's contribution would improve the quality of the debate. Nothing against the argumentation, but it pretty much smells like ad-hominem. Kind regards, - -- Felipe Augusto van de Wiel (faw) Debian. Freedom to code. Code to freedom! -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEAREIAAYFAkpNPawACgkQCjAO0JDlykYUWgCg1Lqj8G3Ra+HcWutj7e2v8QAu MtIAnjRJDyggyiYq94iT5lEfG+nce5Tk =BLgo -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
