Hi, on debian-private which I can't quote here I was asked, whether I would continue 'going for forced “team” maintenance'. My answer was as following:
I stick to the sentence of my platform: 'If you think single maintainership of packages is the right way to cope with future problems for Debian you should probably rank me below "None of the above".' I don't see both statements equivalent. My statement is about a vision voters are sharing (or not). Your statement is about forcing something that neither can be forced nor has the DPL any power to force something (per constitution). What I like to accomplish as a first step is drafting a GR about the mandatory usage of Salsa as some first step to enable some effective way in "Building redundancy" (the paragraph which contains the sentence above). Scott asked on debian-vote: What specific powers of the DPL will help you realize this goal?[1] I might like to add to the answer I gave to this question: Probably all other work as DPL might rather keep me away from working on this. However, I like to encourage interested people (and due my campaign I sensed a lot of interest), to draft a sensible GR about this topic. Your choice you consider me below NOTA right now or vote "Further discussion" later. I consider the mandatory usage of Salsa important to accomplish Debian wide changes. Janitor is nice, its polishing things but I see way more potential. Just assume NMUs of time_t 64Bit transition could have operated on Salsa by pulling everything from there, do automated changes and also pushing back what was uploaded. This could have saved all parties involved quite some time. Five years ago Michael Stapelberg has explained the disadvantages of the "Change process in Debian". I fully subscribe what Michael wrote and I did not noticed any relevant change since that time. Other advantages like tag2upload, a defined CI process etc. come to mind. I think we all agree that Git is a great collaboration tool and we have Salsa as platform that can stir fruitful cooperation. I'd be happy if we could all agree that the consequent usage of Salsa has technical advantages for everybody. In short: While I personally prefer team maintenance I see the mandatory usage of Salsa just as a precondition for this with some additional advantages no matter how many people are working on some package. I rather like to build the foundation for some future DPL who might share my mindset about teams by at the same time standardise the way we handle our source code for extra profit. Since I've frequently seen the XZ case as a dead beat argument against co-maintenance: If XZ had been maintained by more than one person from the outset, it would have been less susceptible to attacks leveraging social pressure, preventing someone from stepping in at an inopportune moment. The fact that you can tweak the case as an argument for both sides might show that it does not really help here. I don't want to hide that I'm personally in favour of team maintenance since I have made overwhelming positive experiences with this - and there were also some negative experiences. Kind regards Andreas. [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2024/04/msg00016.html [2] https://michael.stapelberg.ch/posts/2019-03-10-debian-winding-down/ [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-r/2024/03/msg00000.html -- https://fam-tille.de ----- Ende weitergeleitete Nachricht ----- -- https://fam-tille.de
