Dear Technical Committee members,
as you might imagine I got asked fairly often what is the status of
this issue. I've always made clear that any issue brought to the
tech-ctte is no DPL matter; the Constitution is very clear about that.
The only thing I could have done to help out a bit is tryi
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 09:16:32PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> All that said, one of the few remaining actions I can take on this
> issue is to friendly ping the tech-ctte to actually decide on this
> issue, open for 7 months now. I do think tech-ctte is a very useful
> device in Debian and
On Sun, 26 Dec 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 09:16:32PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > All that said, one of the few remaining actions I can take on this
> > issue is to friendly ping the tech-ctte to actually decide on this
> > issue, open for 7 months now. I do t
Hi Don & others,
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 05:58, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Dec 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 09:16:32PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> > All that said, one of the few remaining actions I can take on this
>> > issue is to friendly ping the te
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 11:57:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> As ~2 more months have passed without a comment, I can't do any better
> than pinging the CTTE again, AOL-ing the text above (especially the last
> paragraph).
>
> As the decision is fully in the hands of the CTTE, I don't see a
Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Bug#573745: ping"):
> 2 more months have passed, ... time for another ping :-)
I have to say I'm very disappointed that we haven't managed to do a
better job of this. We need to find a way to make this decision which
does not become irretrievabl
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 11:33:27AM +, Ian Jackson wrote:
> AIUI at the moment the blocking problem is that we don't have a
> suitable new team. The selection of the new team is not something the
> ctte is any good at, and selecting maintainers by private email
> exchanges is bad anyway becaus
Sandro Tosi writes:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> I would vote against this.
> can you swear your NACK is completely unrelated to the fact you're a
> collegue of Matthias in
> Canonical/Linaro/whatever-umbrella-company-is-now? What I think it's
> important, is to unde
Vincent Bernat writes:
> Wow. Almost nobody uses python-central because python-support has a
> friendly maintainer that helps people asking questions. Reversing the
> situation seems quite biaised. For example, python-central does not
> clean up old pyc files and there are numerous bugs report
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> If the CTTE agrees, I will proceed as follow. I will propose, at my
> discretion, a maintenance team that I hope could be accepted by all
> involved parties. I'll ask for extra volunteers and for (motivated)
> objections, trying to mediate in the discussion and reachi
Sandro,
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 12:18:46PM +, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I would vote against this.
> can you swear your NACK is completely unrelated to the fact you're a
> collegue of Matthias in
> Canonical/Linaro/whatever-umbrella-company-
On Sat, Mar 05, 2011 at 11:55:06AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think, and have for some time, that the ideal situation would be a
> maintenance team that includes Matthias (assuming that Matthias still
> cares deeply about the Python packaging and wants to continue to
> participate). If such a
Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Bug#573745: ping"):
> Let's assume for a moment (very hypothetically!) that a team can be
> found which both includes the current maintainer and has rough consensus
> on -python. Would the CTTE be willing to establish such a team as
> Pyt
One further point, going back a ways in this bug history:
On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 09:16:32PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Nevertheless, the big issue is undeniably still open: maintenance of the
> main Python interpreter packages is still up to a single maintainer,
> with no mutual trust and
On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 03:48:37PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > Additionally, as DPL, I'm worried by seeing packages as important as the
> > Python interpreters maintained by a single person. Even if all other
> > surrounding issues were not there, that would be a bus-factor problem
> > worth f
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 22:58, Steve Langasek wrote:
> I would vote against this.
can you swear your NACK is completely unrelated to the fact you're a
collegue of Matthias in
Canonical/Linaro/whatever-umbrella-company-is-now? What I think it's
important, is to understand if, and in what part, you
Hi!
I am quoting Sandro message to answer to Steve one. Sorry.
>> Matthias has raised specific concerns in the past about
>> python-support behavior, which were discounted by the maintainer; work has
>> since been done to supersede python-support with a new policy and a new
>> helper in the form
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 07:18:16PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Fair enough, I'll consider starting myself a discussion about a
> potential Python maintenance team on -python. It's still only a
> "consider" as the tricky part is that, for various reasons already
> mentioned in this bug log,
On Wed, Mar 09, 2011 at 12:56:34PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Do you mean that you would get a *private* ack from the current
> maintainer, but no public one? But as long as we have the current
> maintainer's agreement (in whatever form), this concern is null.
I didn't mean to imply that I ca
Steve Langasek writes ("Re: Bug#573745: ping"):
> Do you mean that you would get a *private* ack from the current maintainer,
> but no public one?
I am assuming that we are likely to get no ack at all.
> As commented in my previous mail, I don't believe that a maintenanc
* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [110305 20:57]:
> The problem that I have with the curent situation is that kicking Matthias
> to the curb seems to be a requirement for a resolution, and that makes me
> really uncomfortable. I'm not, to note, saying I'm flatly opposed to
> that, just that it make
21 matches
Mail list logo
