[ 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
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 06:23:05PM +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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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 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
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 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 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 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
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 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
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 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 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
> sensors
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 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 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 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 in
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 co
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 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
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 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
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.
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
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
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
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
57 matches
Mail list logo
