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 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 o
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 to be approved"?
> >> should we fulfill? when should we stop operations? (I'm personally not
> >> that motivated to work o
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
Hi Stefano,
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 09:21, Stefano Zacchiroli 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 that ar
Hi Luk,
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 07:29, Luk Claes wrote:
> Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56, Stefano Zacchiroli 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.
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 re
Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56, Stefano Zacchiroli 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 s
On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56, Stefano Zacchiroli 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 parts. In part
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 o
Stefano Zacchiroli 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 consta
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 manage the MIA database?
>
>> The m
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 m
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 profe
Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> Bernd Zeimetz (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.
--
Bern
Bernd Zeimetz (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) do.
Mraw,
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 inevitab
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 re
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 app
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 co
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
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 in
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
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 infras
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 disagre
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 th
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
> sensors
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 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, ac
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 peo
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 w
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 their packages once per release cycle, the
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 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
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
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 vagu
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., contrib
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 u
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
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
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.
>>>
>>> * Ac
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 no
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 n
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 y
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 als
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 reasona
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 act
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 automatio
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 v
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 packag
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 inact
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 pro
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
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. MIA, which
currently is 1 person, requires manual activity
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 fr
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
[ 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 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 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
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 that have to endorse become contradictory.
How does the sta
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 qui
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
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 04:20:37PM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> 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 eve
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 pack
Ar 26/10/2008 am 21:57, ysgrifennodd Lars Wirzenius:
> 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 fail
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,
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* new
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
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
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 th
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
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 endor
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 e
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
On Sat, Oct 25 2008, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> 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 co
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.
>
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
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
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 conc
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 c
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 grea
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 t
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. Any
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 g
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 th
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 outli
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:
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
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 proc
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 22:56 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
> > The keyring does not have to be exposed directly. It could work via a
> > delaying queue or stanging area. Changes commited to be applied to the
> > keyring could be made publicly available for peer-review. This would
> > make it pos
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 22:51 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
> > * Members may be expelled via the normal General Resolution process,
> with
> > a simple majority. Ftpmasters may temporarily limit upload rights in an
> > emergency.
>
> So expulsion by DAM's is a power you are proposin
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> I believe, very strongly, that the important distinction between someone
> who is a member of Debian and someone who is not is that the member may
> vote in Debian matters.
> Further, I do believe that being able to upload packages is another very
>
On Fri, Oct 24 2008, Michael Hanke wrote:
> The keyring does not have to be exposed directly. It could work via a
> delaying queue or stanging area. Changes commited to be applied to the
> keyring could be made publicly available for peer-review. This would
> make it possible that any change coul
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 earlier, of course.
>>>
>> No, please, voting should be voluntary.
>>
Didier Raboud a écrit :
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
>> I really like the idea of:
>> - activity => you keep your membership
>> - inactivity => you lose your membership
>>
>> Maybe we could find another way to define activity, like (upload || vote
>> || svn commit || ...), which retrigger some time of m
Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> I really like the idea of:
> - activity => you keep your membership
> - inactivity => you lose your membership
>
> Maybe we could find another way to define activity, like (upload || vote
> || svn commit || ...), which retrigger some time of memberships.
Or a simple challe
Ana Guerrero a écrit :
> Hi Lars,
>
> Thank you a lot for taking the time in drawing this nice proposal.
>
> I like it in overall, but with some little changes, that have been already
> covered in previous emails. Still I am commenting them.
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Lars Wir
2008/10/24 Lars Wirzenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I think we should go in the opposite direction: massively simplify
> the whole membership thing.
I support your proposal. I'm very much along those lines of thinking.
As others have said, some things have to be polished, but I like it
very much on
Hi Lars,
Thank you a lot for taking the time in drawing this nice proposal.
I like it in overall, but with some little changes, that have been already
covered in previous emails. Still I am commenting them.
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
[...]
> I think we shoul
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
[snip]
> Proposal
>
>
> * People should be allowed to join Debian when there is reasonably
> wide-spread consensus that they agree with the project's goals, are
> committed to working on those goals, and are trustworthy
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
