On September 5, 2024 3:39:35 PM UTC, Andreas Tille <andr...@an3as.eu> wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Am Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 11:29:39PM -0400 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
>> On Wednesday, September 4, 2024 6:22:14 PM EDT Pierre-Elliott Bécue wrote:
>> >
>> > OoC, what is your point, especially considering the quote of your own
>> > opinion Andreas made?
>> >
>> > This just seems passive-aggressive, and the fact he stepped up once
>> > doesn't mean he has the time or will to step up hundreds of times.
>>
>> I think it's odd that he would talk about how hesitant people are to touch
>> other packages when he in fact does it himself. I'm not sure who he thinks
>> he's speaking for, clearly not himself.
>
>I did it *after* someone with insight into the topic gave the according
>hint[1].
>So the sequence was:
> 1. I filed ITS
> 2. Someone with insight suggested removal
> 3. Reassigned ITS to RM
>I personally see some difference between this sequence and a straight asking
>for
>removal.
>
>> I don't have statistics, but maintainer filed RM requests a pretty rare. My
>> impression is it's only a small fraction of the total. I processed a lot of
>> requests last night and almost none of the requests for package removal were
>> from maintainers.
>
>You are definitely the expert about package removals.
>
>> It probably was a little passive aggressive, but I don't appreciate the DPL
>> using the Bits from DPL message to punch down like that. If he has a point
>> to
>> make to further the discussion, it should be made as part of the discussion.
>>
>
>My intention was to highlight interesting contributions to the entire
>discussion. If phrases like 'Scott Kitterman made a valid point' and 'I
>agree' came across as dismissive, I sincerely apologize—that was not my
>intent. I genuinely valued your point, and I added my own suggestion
>"based on defined criteria, it could help reduce some of the social
>pressure."
>
>Item 2. above could possibly be such a criterion, since you pointed to
>this actual example.
>
>> If he's only trying to bring the issue to the wider project's attention,
>> then
>> I don't think picking one person's opinion to disagree with in Bits is very
>> appropriate.
>
>I'm sorry if there was any misunderstanding, but I'm unsure how my
>message gave the impression that I disagreed. Could you clarify which
>part led you to this conclusion? Also, just to clarify, I avoid using
>sarcasm in electronic communication, especially in Bits from the DPL, as
>it often doesn't translate well.
Thanks for the clarification. I read it as I said something and you disagree
(since you proposed something different). I think it's inherently abusive for
a person in a position of power (DPL speaking as DPL, e.g. in Bits from the
FPL) to leverage that position against someone who is not similarly situated,
which is how it came across to me.
I'm willing to assume good faith and accept that was not your intention. It's
in the past.
>> FWIW, all an automated process would do is create work for the FTP Team.
>> Those I would feel I have to scrutinize even more closely than ones filed by
>> a
>> human since no one has given it a sanity check before it gets to the FTP
>> Team
>> to process.
>
>I need to trust you here as the one who is doing the work. The
>discussion also was about a semi-automatic process which. Do you have
>some opinion about this?
>
I don't have any problem with a process that suggests to people doing QA work
in Debian that package removal might be appropriate based on some criteria. I
don't think that such a semi-automatic process relives the person filing the RM
bug from engaging their brain to decide if it makes sense.
I can see how having such a tool that used criteria that has been socialized
within the project to some degree might reduce social pressure to not file the
bug. More people working on QA is always good.
Scott K
