On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
This proposal received a lot of interest back then, but in the end
went nowhere. I think we should resurrect it and put into use at
least some of its parts. In particular, the part about expiration
of DD rights received only
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
In the past few days I've been in touch with Christoph Berg as a DAM
representative, which has been implementing the inactivity proposal
starting from the sample scripts of [1]. Then, DAM also had a first run
of the inactivity test (i.e. 2 years without neither an
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:37:54PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
That is the much more time-consuming than checking DDs. for our fellow
DDs we have several data sources (mls posts, uploads, key usage) to
track them, while we don't have anything similar for non-DDs. So
several manual researches are
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 04:21:37PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
- what to do about the current (yet unanswered) queries we've
received? should we reply please wait for this to be approved?
should we fulfill? when should we stop operations? (I'm personally not
that motivated to work on
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 07:29:20AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
some questions I still see without a clear answer:
ACK on most answers from Luk, some more comments on some of them
below.
- what about non-DDs that are currently tracked in MIA database,
along with DDs?
Nothing changes
Hi Stefano,
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 09:21, Stefano Zacchiroliz...@debian.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 07:29:20AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
some questions I still see without a clear answer:
ACK on most answers from Luk, some more comments on some of them
below.
- what about non-DDs
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
This proposal received a lot of interest back then, but in the end
went nowhere. I think we should resurrect it and put into use at
least some of its parts. In particular, the part about expiration
of DD rights received only
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56, Stefano Zacchiroliz...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
This proposal received a lot of interest back then, but in the end
went nowhere. I think we should resurrect it and put into use at
least some of its
Sandro Tosi wrote:
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56, Stefano Zacchiroliz...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
This proposal received a lot of interest back then, but in the end
went nowhere. I think we should resurrect it and put into use at
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 11:32:54AM +0200, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 02:19:38AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/07/09 at 01:10 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57:07AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Inactive maintainers do not make harm
Steve Langasek vor...@debian.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:49:35PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I have nothing against this in principle, but how is this any
different from the people who manage the MIA database?
Stefano Zacchiroli z...@debian.org wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:17:19PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think that the time framework is large enough not to have a
warning.
One of the reasons I think it would be useful to have warnings is
that there are other ways in which DDs may be
On Sun, Jul 26, 2009 at 01:38:04AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
The infrastructure is essential for our distribution, same for
documentations an translations. I can't see a reason why such people
should not be able to become DDs.
Because it implies a professional
On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 05:34:19PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:52:11PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
But I know that there are/will be DDs which do infrastructure stuff only,
and
rarely upload packages. Such DDs should never be regarded as
Steve Langasek wrote:
The infrastructure is essential for our distribution, same for
documentations an translations. I can't see a reason why such people
should not be able to become DDs.
Because it implies a professional priest caste separate from the
developers who will inevitably drift
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de (26/07/2009):
See above. Also: There're a lot of teams where outsiders can help and
earn trust without being able to break things.
Do you mean people like Simon Paillard? With contributions in l10n,
i18n, www, and mirror domains?
If you didn't, I (at the very least)
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
Bernd Zeimetz be...@bzed.de (26/07/2009):
See above. Also: There're a lot of teams where outsiders can help and
earn trust without being able to break things.
Do you mean people like Simon Paillard? With contributions in l10n,
i18n, www, and mirror domains?
Yes.
--
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Kevin Mark wrote:
If someone goes through the arduious process of becomeing a DD:
proving their knowledge of:
a. FLOSS ideals,
b. Debian ideals,
c. FLOSS legal ideas,
d. computer languages,
e. social skills
f. and patience to wait for various approvals, account
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:52:11PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
But I know that there are/will be DDs which do infrastructure stuff only, and
rarely upload packages. Such DDs should never be regarded as MIA, of course.
I am not convinced of this. Infrastructure contributions are necessary and
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:52:11PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Should activity in teams be enough reason to be regarded as an active DD?
Yes.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:35:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Also people who do translations. Perhaps we can institute other
On Fri Jul 24 08:43, Steve Langasek wrote:
I am not convinced of this. Infrastructure contributions are necessary and
valuable, but we don't admit people as Debian Developers on the basis of
infrastructure contributions, nor to work on infrastructure;
They may need (depending what it is they
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 02:19:38AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/07/09 at 01:10 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57:07AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Inactive maintainers do not make harm by definition.
The two are completely orthogonal. Also, I disagree that
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
On Fri Jul 24 08:43, Steve Langasek wrote:
I am not convinced of this. Infrastructure contributions are necessary and
valuable, but we don't admit people as Debian Developers on the basis of
infrastructure contributions, nor to work on
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:52:11PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Should activity in teams be enough reason to be regarded as an active DD?
Yes.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:35:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Also people who do
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:52:11PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Should activity in teams be enough reason to be regarded as an active DD?
Yes.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:35:00PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Also people who do translations. Perhaps we can
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Setting up a bot should not be too much work, once we set out
the format of the structured email received. And an archive of the
mail, perhaps sorted by the human it is attributed to, can help a human
auditing the system.
Just use the code and from CIA.vc.
Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:52:11PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
But I know that there are/will be DDs which do infrastructure stuff only, and
rarely upload packages. Such DDs should never be regarded as MIA, of course.
I am not convinced of this. Infrastructure
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
On Fri, Jul 24 2009, Kevin Mark wrote:
If someone goes through the arduious process of becomeing a DD:
proving their knowledge of:
a. FLOSS ideals,
b. Debian ideals,
c. FLOSS legal ideas,
d. computer languages,
e. social skills
f. and patience to wait for various
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:49:35PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I have nothing against this in principle, but how is this any
different from the people who manage the MIA database?
The main difference is the automation of
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 02:19:38AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
I'm not sure if this is the correct approach to that problem: It
doesn't take in account maintainers that are not DDs, and that can
also become MIA. But it could be used in addition to other
approaches.
Fair enough, that's
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 05:38:58AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
If it's going to be automated, does it behoove us to also send
automated mails to DDs that are getting close to the two-year limit,
warning them? Or is it your view that 2 years without activity is
so far beyond what's reasonable
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
* DDs which are not active for 2 years or more automatically loose
vote and upload rights.
* Activity is defined as not having neither voted nor signed any
^Inactivity probably.
upload (in the past 2 years).
Just for comparison, the developer's reference
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
* DDs which are not active for 2 years or more automatically loose
vote and upload rights.
* Activity is defined as not having neither voted nor signed any
upload (in the past 2 years).
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
* DDs which are not active for 2 years or more automatically loose
vote and upload rights.
* Activity is defined as not having neither voted nor
On 23/07/09 at 10:52 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
* DDs which are not active for 2 years or more automatically loose
vote and upload rights.
* Activity is defined as not having
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/07/09 at 10:52 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
* DDs which are not active for 2 years or more automatically loose
vote and upload rights.
* Activity is defined as
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:52:20AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
My opinion in two short comments:
- reduce the time to 1 year
This introduces the possibility that, even if the DD votes in every election
and uploads their packages once per release cycle, they'll be MIAed out of
Debian - if one
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:26:45AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 05:38:58AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
If it's going to be automated, does it behoove us to also send
automated mails to DDs that are getting close to the two-year limit,
warning them? Or is it
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:56:00PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 10:52:20AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
My opinion in two short comments:
- reduce the time to 1 year
This introduces the possibility that, even if the DD votes in every election
and uploads
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:17:19PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
I think that the time framework is large enough not to have a
warning.
One of the reasons I think it would be useful to have warnings is
that there are other ways in which DDs may be constantly
contributing (e.g., contributing
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:12:24PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Still, I'd prefer not to have to write such specific details on the
text we are going to vote on. I propose to leave such details to DAM /
DSA, would you be fine with that?
I don't think it's worth voting on anything so vague
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:34:34PM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 04:12:24PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
Still, I'd prefer not to have to write such specific details on the
text we are going to vote on. I propose to leave such details to DAM /
DSA, would you be
On Wed, Jul 22 2009, Charles Plessy wrote:
Personnaly, I would not mind a more stringent mechanism, for instance
defining activity as changing one’s LDAP password once per year. Or if
we want to be fancy, we could count time not in years but in
releases. Releases are the greatest events of
On Wed, Jul 22 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
If it's going to be automated, does it behoove us to also send
automated mails to DDs that are getting close to the two-year limit,
warning them? Or is it your view that 2 years without activity is so
far beyond what's reasonable that there's no
On Thu, Jul 23 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Steve Langasek wrote:
(Are you referring here to package teams, or infrastructure teams?)
I doubt that packaging teams are a problem here, I'd imagine that
every DD uploads a package one a year anyway. But I know that there
are/will be DDs which
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 05:38:58AM +0200, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:49:35PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I have nothing against this in principle, but how is this any
different from the people who
[ The original post I'm replying to is at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/10/msg00145.html ]
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I do not like the way Joerg wants to change the way people become and
are members of the Debian project. It's not all bad,
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
[ The original post I'm replying to is at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2008/10/msg00145.html ]
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I do not like the way Joerg wants to change the way
On Wednesday 22 July 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
---
* DDs which are not active for 2 years or more automatically loose
vote and upload rights.
s/loose/lose/
I guess in practice that means: have their key removed from
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:44:42PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
On Wednesday 22 July 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
* DDs which are not active for 2 years or more automatically loose
vote and upload rights.
s/loose/lose/
Thanks, bad typo.
I guess in practice that means: have their key
On 22/07/09 at 18:49 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:23:05PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
I have nothing against this in principle, but how is this any
different from the people who manage the MIA database?
The main difference is the automation of the process.
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57:07AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
MIA is also about detecting packages that are de-facto orphaned, not
just about developers. Actually, I think that it's more important
that we work on detecting packages that are badly maintained, rather
than on detecting inactive
On 23/07/09 at 01:10 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57:07AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
MIA is also about detecting packages that are de-facto orphaned, not
just about developers. Actually, I think that it's more important
that we work on detecting packages
Le Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
* DDs which are not active for 2 years or more automatically loose
vote and upload rights.
* Activity is defined as not having neither voted
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 22:46:32 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
What the proposals says is that any two out of the (currently)
thousand can block all entrants. This is scary to me.
And if they do that, the rest of us can get them to stop (be it by peer
pressure or removal from the project
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I do not like the way Joerg wants to change the way people become and
are members of the Debian project. (...)
I think we should go in the opposite direction: massively simplify
the whole membership thing.
I am naturally quite
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 07:53:08PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 04:42:14PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
That's what I mean with this doesn't scale to big groups. Above
some size (which Debian has - by far - exceeded), the opposite
constraints on the number of people
I promised to get back to re-thinking Debian membership processes. After
everything that's happened, I think it would be best to postpone
discussions about this until after Lenny is released.
I am planning to start or join that discussion after the release. (And,
yes, I hope to do a DEP
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Note that the whole point is to know that the person in question shall
know his/her limits, and know who to ask when in trouble. Not everybody
should be a top class programmer if what he/she'll ever do is packaging
pure perl extensions. OTOH the first time suck a package
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:56:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Secondly, What exactly to these members of the project do, if
they do not vote or upload packages?
They might commit to the webml repository or sent mails to debian-news,
e.g.
Of course, they could just vote as well,
On Sat,25.Oct.08, 21:56:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If you are not voting or uploading packages, everythign else you
do can be done without a maintainers hat on, so you do not need to be
a DD.
Does this mean you oppose to the concept of having non-packagers being
members of
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Concrete proposal: max(Q, 20) endorsements, two existing members
together can veto. The veto can be done anonymously via the Debian
Account Manager to avoid peer pressure to not veto. The DAM only
counts the
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:49:35PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
Concrete proposal: max(Q, 20) endorsements, two existing members
together can veto. The veto can be done anonymously via the Debian
Account Manager to avoid peer pressure to not veto. The DAM only
counts the endorsements
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:12:48AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
Hi,
One of the issues I have with this proposal is that there seems
to be, by design, absolutely no consideration about skill levels or
quality of developers. I'll concede that the current process might not
do a
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:46:13PM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
Ana Guerrero a écrit :
[...]
* Membership ends 24 months after they're given, or after the latest
participation in a vote arranged by the project's Secretary. Members
may retire themselves
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 07:59:58AM +, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:53:46PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 12:18 +0200, Peter Palfrader kirjoitti:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 23:47 -0700, Steve Langasek kirjoitti:
I think it would be more sensible to kick out the people who don't do
anything for the project *except* vote.
That is certainly a good point.
The reason I propose counting voting only is that that's the only action
all DD would have
la, 2008-10-25 kello 09:59 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli kirjoitti:
A scenario I want to avoid for example is that newcomers can alter the
keyring adding tens of friends. Such a possibility would imply that
if Debian as a project fails *once* in checking IDs and motivations
for *a single*
Hi,
One of the issues I have with this proposal is that there seems
to be, by design, absolutely no consideration about skill levels or
quality of developers. I'll concede that the current process might not
do a great job of assessing quality of contribution, but it tries. The
new
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:46:13AM +1100, Helen Faulkner wrote:
Voting is both a right and a responsibility of members in any kind of
democracy.
How can it be a responsibility if people can simply not bother to vote,
with no penalty?
I think that's a peculiarly Australian way of looking at
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:53:46PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 12:18 +0200, Peter Palfrader kirjoitti:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that allows any
member to change them,
The rationale is simple: to avoid
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 02:49:13PM +0200, Michael Hanke wrote:
Thinking about this again, 'public' access to the keyring could also
be a way to address the 'large number of inactive developers' --
_if_ they exist. Anyone could trigger the removal of anybody (using
the staging approach outlined
On Sat, 25 Oct 2008, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 02:49:13PM +0200, Michael Hanke wrote:
Thinking about this again, 'public' access to the keyring could also
be a way to address the 'large number of inactive developers' --
_if_ they exist. Anyone could trigger the
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 04:53:28PM +0200, Leo costela Antunes wrote:
Or implementing something like the suggestion from Michael Hanke[0],
making the process open, but not immediate.
No, it is not enough.
The public visibility of changes on a wiki does not grant that every
single page do not
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:02:42AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 02:49:13PM +0200, Michael Hanke wrote:
Thinking about this again, 'public' access to the keyring could also
be a way to address the 'large number of inactive developers' --
_if_ they exist. Anyone
On Sat,25.Oct.08, 00:36:06, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
My point is that if your only activity in Debian is periodically
answering an automated email, I don't see the point of staying member of
the project.
How about this: every Debian Member chooses his own method of stating I
am active in the
Le samedi 25 octobre 2008 à 01:12 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
One of the issues I have with this proposal is that there seems
to be, by design, absolutely no consideration about skill levels or
quality of developers. I'll concede that the current process might not
do a great
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote:
On Sat,25.Oct.08, 00:36:06, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
My point is that if your only activity in Debian is periodically
answering an automated email, I don't see the point of staying member of
the project.
How about this: every Debian Member chooses
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Le samedi 25 octobre 2008 à 01:12 -0500, Manoj Srivastava a écrit :
One of the issues I have with this proposal is that there seems
to be, by design, absolutely no consideration about skill levels or
quality of developers. I'll concede
On Sat,25.Oct.08, 09:41:35, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If you are not voting or uploading packages, everythign else you
do can be done without a maintainers hat on, so you do not need to be
a DD.
Does this mean you oppose to the concept of having non-packagers being
members of the
Andrei Popescu [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Sat,25.Oct.08, 09:41:35, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
If you are not voting or uploading packages, everythign
else you do can be done without a maintainers hat on, so you do
not need to be a DD.
Does this mean you oppose to the
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:29:54AM +0200, Michael Hanke wrote:
If you want to help over with that, step in and help the currently
understaffed MIA team.
This is the main point! Changing the default from 'once in, in forever'
to 'in as long as being active' makes the MIA team obsolete.
I
I do not like the way Joerg wants to change the way people become and
are members of the Debian project. It's not all bad, but on the whole it
makes some of the worst parts of Debian become worse. It concentrates
power into fewer hands, removes some of the benefits of the Debian
Maintainer
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The other end of the membership process is screwed up too. We should not
have to actively seek out members who are Missing In Action. Staying a
member in Debian should be an active process: if you don't do anything,
you
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
I do not like the way Joerg wants to change the way people become and
are members of the Debian project. It's not all bad, but on the whole it
makes some of the worst parts of Debian become worse. It concentrates
power into
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
*
The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that
allows any member to change them,
Since you refused to explain on IRC, please explain the rationale and
use-cases here.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
Hi,
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* Membership is controlled via GnuPG keyrings, primarily maintained by the
Debian Account Manager. The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that
allows any member to change them, and that is fully transparent to the
members in general, and that further makes
also sprach Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.24.1044 +0200]:
* Membership is controlled via GnuPG keyrings, primarily maintained by the
Debian Account Manager. The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that
allows any member to change them, and that is fully transparent to the
On Friday 2008-10-24, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Lars Wirzenius wrote:
* Membership is controlled via GnuPG keyrings, primarily maintained by
the Debian Account Manager. The keyrings shall be maintained in a way
that allows any member to change them, and that is fully transparent to
the
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:35:43PM +0200, cobaco wrote:
AIUI he's just advocating having the equivalent of a (publicly scrutinized)
NMU for the keyring, that is:
- have trusted gatekeeper(s) who normally does all changes
- have all changes be public (many eyes make all bugs shallow)
-
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 02:12:27PM +0200, Michael Hanke wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:49:48PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 01:35:43PM +0200, cobaco wrote:
AIUI he's just advocating having the equivalent of a (publicly
scrutinized)
NMU for the
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 11:42 +0200, Michael Hanke kirjoitti:
What does this mean? It automatically ends after a vote or two years?
Or
is it rather (semi)automatically extended by continued contributions of a yet
to be defined type (e.g. package uploads, bug reports/fixes)?
You become a member,
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 12:18 +0200, Peter Palfrader kirjoitti:
On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
*
The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that
allows any member to change them,
Since you refused to explain on IRC, please explain the rationale and
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 13:36 +0200, martin f krafft kirjoitti:
also sprach Lars Wirzenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.24.1044 +0200]:
* Membership is controlled via GnuPG keyrings, primarily maintained by the
Debian Account Manager. The keyrings shall be maintained in a way that
allows any
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:31:36PM +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld wrote:
So its IMHO not really a good idea to give power to people,
who _do not need_ the power.
Why not? Is this the same reason it's not a good idea to let people
have liquids on airplanes?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:50:28PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 11:42 +0200, Michael Hanke kirjoitti:
What does this mean? It automatically ends after a vote or two
years? Or is it rather (semi)automatically extended by continued
contributions of a yet to be defined
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you're going to do this, there should also be another way than
voting for people to reset their timer. I wouldn't want to see people
having to propose a null vote because they didn't care for any official
votes during the last two years and now find
also sprach Clint Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008.10.24.1502 +0200]:
Why not? Is this the same reason it's not a good idea to let
people have liquids on airplanes?
No, for the same reasons that you exit a root shell when you are
done with whatever required you to open one, or that you don't
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:23:34PM +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
No, for the same reasons that you exit a root shell when you are
done with whatever required you to open one, or that you don't stand
in the middle of a road while reading the map. Come on, Clint!
Those are decisions I make
Le vendredi 24 octobre 2008 à 13:49 +0200, Patrick Schoenfeld a écrit :
and where is the difference? Still, every DD would be able to kick out
every other DD of the keyring. Obvious the only protection against abuse
is that it should be public.
Every DD is already able to upload a package that
1 - 100 of 119 matches
Mail list logo
