The role of the DPL in technical decisions
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: (following up here for now - I think it's a question that could do with more discussion than IRC really allows for) > I would like to know from the DPL candidates what is their opinion on way the > ftp-masters handle the NEW queue, and in particular how they handle the > packages that are not really NEW : renamed binary/source packages, package > split, new kernel version and new library version which need a new package > upload. Speaking personally, it would certainly be nice if packages went through NEW quicker. However, I don't think that's entirely relevant: > Do you think there is currently a problem about this, and if so what do you > intent to change in this regard. Do I think there's a problem? Only in that people are unsure what causes delays in NEW processing, and as a result are unable to form a good opinion about whether those delays are acceptable or not. Fundamentally, it isn't the DPLs job to make judgements about the technical decisions a team makes. If the ftp-masters believe that the current handling of the NEW queue is the best way of doing so, then that's their decision to make. The developers have the right to criticise that, and it would be nice if we could have a reasonable discussion about whether it could be improved. In the end, if the developers and the ftp-masters continue to disagree, we have the technical committee to decide who's right. Put simply, the constitution says that the DPL can't make technical decisions that overrule other people. I agree with the constitution. However, I will work to ensure that it's possible for people to find out /why/ NEW is processed the way it is. Teams have the authority to make technical decisions - they should be willing to justify them to the rest of the project. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The role of the DPL in technical decisions
On 02-Mar-05, 06:52 (CST), Matthew Garrett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Fundamentally, it isn't the DPLs job to make judgements about the > technical decisions a team makes. If the ftp-masters believe that the > current handling of the NEW queue is the best way of doing so, then > that's their decision to make. I think mosts people's current questioning of this is not about particular decisions that the ftp-masters are making (which is technical), but about the inability to find out what decisions are being made, if any, and what order those decisions are being made in. These are procedural issues, and entirely within the purview of the DPL to question. Steve -- Steve Greenland The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the world. -- seen on the net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The role of the DPL in technical decisions
On Wednesday 02 March 2005 13:52, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Put simply, the constitution says that the DPL can't make technical > decisions that overrule other people. I agree with the constitution. > However, I will work to ensure that it's possible for people to find out > /why/ NEW is processed the way it is. Teams have the authority to make > technical decisions - they should be willing to justify them to the rest > of the project. The difference between debian-kernel, debian-release and debian-x vs. debian-ftpmaster and debian-buildd is not technical. Regards, David -- - hallo... wie gehts heute? - *hust* gut *rotz* *keuch* - gott sei dank kommunizieren wir Ãber ein septisches medium ;) -- Matthias Leeb, Uni f. angewandte Kunst, 2005-02-15
Re: The role of the DPL in technical decisions
Steve Greenland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think mosts people's current questioning of this is not about > particular decisions that the ftp-masters are making (which is > technical), but about the inability to find out what decisions are being > made, if any, and what order those decisions are being made in. These > are procedural issues, and entirely within the purview of the DPL to > question. Absolutely. If teams make technical decisions that affect other developers, they should be willing to discuss why those decisions have been made. If they fail to do so, then it should be the DPL's responsibility to ensure that that information is passed on. Debian is run by its developers - the DPL exists in order to ensure that the developers are able to make appropriate decisions, not to make those decisions himself. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The role of the DPL in technical decisions
David Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 02 March 2005 13:52, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> Put simply, the constitution says that the DPL can't make technical >> decisions that overrule other people. I agree with the constitution. >> However, I will work to ensure that it's possible for people to find out >> /why/ NEW is processed the way it is. Teams have the authority to make >> technical decisions - they should be willing to justify them to the rest >> of the project. > > The difference between debian-kernel, debian-release and debian-x vs. > debian-ftpmaster and debian-buildd is not technical. No, but that wasn't the question being asked. It's unreasonable for the DPL to ask the ftp-masters to change the way they process NEW, which is what Sven appeared to be asking for. It's reasonable for the DPL to ask the ftp-masters to justify the way they process NEW, which would allow the developers to discuss the technical issues involved and try to find a better way of approaching the problem. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions
Helen wrote: > >You are welcome to either post suggested questions to this list, or to >email myself and/or Martin privately with your suggestions. If you wish >your questions to be anonymous, please email us privately and make that >clear. A commonly-acknowledged problem within Debian is communication: * A lack of effective communications in some areas * Rude, aggressive communication dissuading contributions Is there anything that can be done on these fronts? How would our DPL candidates improve things in these areas? -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.[EMAIL PROTECTED] "It's actually quite entertaining to watch ag129 prop his foot up on the desk so he can get a better aim." [ seen in ucam.chat ] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The role of the DPL in technical decisions
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:52:47PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (following up here for now - I think it's a question that could do with > more discussion than IRC really allows for) > > > I would like to know from the DPL candidates what is their opinion on way > > the > > ftp-masters handle the NEW queue, and in particular how they handle the > > packages that are not really NEW : renamed binary/source packages, package > > split, new kernel version and new library version which need a new package > > upload. > > Speaking personally, it would certainly be nice if packages went through > NEW quicker. However, I don't think that's entirely relevant: > > > Do you think there is currently a problem about this, and if so what do you > > intent to change in this regard. > > Do I think there's a problem? Only in that people are unsure what causes > delays in NEW processing, and as a result are unable to form a good > opinion about whether those delays are acceptable or not. > > Fundamentally, it isn't the DPLs job to make judgements about the > technical decisions a team makes. If the ftp-masters believe that the > current handling of the NEW queue is the best way of doing so, then > that's their decision to make. The developers have the right to > criticise that, and it would be nice if we could have a reasonable > discussion about whether it could be improved. In the end, if the > developers and the ftp-masters continue to disagree, we have the > technical committee to decide who's right. > > Put simply, the constitution says that the DPL can't make technical > decisions that overrule other people. I agree with the constitution. > However, I will work to ensure that it's possible for people to find out > /why/ NEW is processed the way it is. Teams have the authority to make > technical decisions - they should be willing to justify them to the rest > of the project. Thanks for the reply, and i think your reply went beyond my question. I just wanted to know about the NEW subset which concern packages that our policy or common practice mandates a package renaming which automatically trigger NEW. As i understand the NEW handling is needed for : a) make sure the licence is ok, and the package is otherwise distribuable, and maybe setup the US-big-brother survey of developer's work. b) check if the new package upload doesn't split in too many subpackages or whatever and doesn't explode the archive: Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: The role of the DPL in technical decisions
Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As i understand the NEW handling is needed for : > > a) make sure the licence is ok, and the package is otherwise distribuable, > and maybe setup the US-big-brother survey of developer's work. > > b) check if the new package upload doesn't split in too many subpackages or > whatever and doesn't explode the archive: c) ensure that the packages are in the appropriate section. But making decisions about this really isn't the DPL's job. If you disagree with how the ftp-masters handle it, then it ought to be discussed with them. If they're unwilling to have that discussion, then the DPL's involvement may be justifiable. -- Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Call for brevity and on-topicness of discussion
Hi people, With the record number of six people running for DPL this year[1], and having now five platforms available (at the same location), this year's DPL campaiging promises to become an interesting discussion. In order to try to keep the size of the discussion still consumeable by as much people as possible, I would like to call for all participants to pay attention to common mailing list etiquette: - Please try to be brief and to the point - Do not make off-topic remarks or just reply because you've come up with something witty; debian-curiosa[2] is if nothing else best suited for that. - Try to keep up with -vote so that you don't ask duplicate questions/give duplicate answers - Trim down the text you're replying to, such that only exactly the needed context is there. Do not quote signatures. - Change the subject when turning the (sub-)thread into a different direction - Do not top-post - Be polite. Do not attack with argumentum ad hominem. Of course, personal properties of the candidates are on-topic for a DPL election, but please only discuss those that are relevant for a prospective DPL I hope that if everybody pays a little bit attention to these guidelines, the campaigning discussion will be constructive, nice and interesting, and especially makes sure that the debian developers can gather the information here that they would like to have to make a well-thought choice for the DPL elections. Thank you very much, --Jeroen N.B.: In the interest of full disclosure, I'm affiliated with Andreas Schuldei and Branden Robinson, read their platforms for more information, I will also seperately send out a mail about that soonishly Note, this mail is written with last year's discussion in mind, and is not a reaction to anything that happened this year on -vote [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2005/vote_001 [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-curiosa/ -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions
Em Seg, 2005-02-28 às 06:29, Helen Faulkner escreveu: > We would therefore like to call for suggestions for questions to be put > to the candidates during the debate. We hope to be able to choose a set > of questions which reflect the concerns and interests of Debian > Developers in general. Ok, here's a suggestion... * I had recently post a message to debian-project[1] suggesting that we could plan structural changes in Debian, I mean, We all know that "Debian releases when it's ready", but few people know what the "it" means. For example, if the init maintainers decide to define the locale environment variables at the boot process, many packages would break and then Debian would be far from being ready. I'm not criticizing this structural changes, but I do think that the DPL could coordinate this sctructural changes in a way more people know what it means by "when it's ready". I would like the candidates to comment on this topic. daniel -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions
I know I've caused a lot of controversy with this issue but I keep reapproaching it only because I feel its so important and that we are still failing to address the issue with the proper level of seriousness (ie. completely and permanently solved). So... Dead horse... Kick. Kick. Kick. Q: In June of 2004 it became apparent that SPI had been having deep set responsibilities executing its chartered task. Donations equal to roughly half of Debian's total holdings did not make their way into the project's accounts due to poor (or non-existant) bookkeeping procedures. This failure reflected poorly on Debian when donors have to correct the accounting errors introduced. No typical business or professional organization can tolerate this type of performance in a mission critical area. As a DPL candidate, what actions will you take to insure that Debian's funds and other property are managed in a professional manner? How will you insure successful execution? On Monday 28 February 2005 3:29 am, Helen Faulkner wrote: > As you probably know, the 2005 Debian Project Leader elections will > involve an IRC debate, to be chaired by Martin Krafft and myself. > > The exact format and time of the debate have not been finalised, though > the debate will obviously be held during the campaign period (ie before > March 21st) and the format will probably be broadly similar to those in > previous years. The details will be finalised soon and announced to > this list. > > We would therefore like to call for suggestions for questions to be put > to the candidates during the debate. We hope to be able to choose a set > of questions which reflect the concerns and interests of Debian > Developers in general. > > You are welcome to either post suggested questions to this list, or to > email myself and/or Martin privately with your suggestions. If you wish > your questions to be anonymous, please email us privately and make that > clear. -- Ean Schuessler, CTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions
Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > Q: In June of 2004 it became apparent that SPI had been having deep set > responsibilities executing its chartered task. [...] JOOI, is "deep set responsibilities" new business-speak for problems? As past -vote readers know, I agree with Ean that this is a serious matter and think DPL candidates should consider it. Can we prod a bit at this and related topics during any IRC debate? It could link with how debian delegates are sometimes appointed for talking to other projects and sometimes documented and sometimes announced and sometimes report, apparently at random as far as I can tell. Should the DPL try QA, SLAs, anarchism or some other principle, or not worry about it at all? After first read of the platforms, the candidates look to me like the unknown, the politician, the campaigner, the teamster, the control freak and the scary. I'll let you guess who's who. Related news: at the first of this month's meetings, SPI's board started moving themselves towards meeting the standards http://www.give.org/standards/ - Here's hoping it helps. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Clarification about krooger's platform
Hi everyone :) None of the individuals listed in the gender imbalance section were consulted about this plan; we also think these issues are deeper than can be fixed with a three month analysis. Furthermore, we do not believe this to be a good-faith effort to address the relevant issues, given past behavior of the candidate. Thanks, Erinn -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions
Sven Luther wrote: On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:29:41AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote: You are welcome to either post suggested questions to this list, or to email myself and/or Martin privately with your suggestions. If you wish your questions to be anonymous, please email us privately and make that clear. Ok, i have one question. Can we keep the debate questions off this list? Otherwise the choice is between leaving them unanswered for a couple of weeks until the debate, or having them already answered on the list, and thus redundant for the debate. Having different Subjects for different topics would be nice too... I would like to know from the DPL candidates what is their opinion on way the ftp-masters handle the NEW queue, I think this is the wrong question. The right question to ask is what the ftpmasters think of the way NEW is being handled, and what resources they would appreciate. There's two reasons for this. One is the whole point of having people running a particular area is that they know what's going on; given the choice between a specialist's analysis of the problems and a generalist's, take the former. The other is that asking the DPL or DPL candidates to look for problems in the way others are doing their jobs is just asking for unnecessary conflicts: there are _always_ going to be problems in the way _every_ task within Debian is handled. The issue isn't whether there are problems, it's which problems are the most important to handle. And NEW processing doesn't even come close. and in particular how they handle the packages that are not really NEW : renamed binary/source packages, package split, new kernel version and new library version which need a new package upload. NEW is a technical term -- it means binary and source packages that are not already in the archive under that name. So those packages *are* really NEW, and that's not even a debatable question. I've already addressed this topic with my ftpmaster hat on recently, see: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/02/msg00225.html Do you think there is currently a problem about this, and if so what do you intent to change in this regard. What I am doing about it is processing packages that are stuck in NEW that are holding up higher priority tasks such as the release and security updates. Other ftpmasters are doing likewise. What I will do if elected is to support ftpmaster and other delegates in their actions so they can focus on doing useful work according to their own best judgement (which is, after all, why they're a delegate in the first place), rather than having to justify their actions in response to the latest fad complaint. Cheers, aj -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions
Anthony Towns wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:29:41AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote: > >>You are welcome to either post suggested questions to this list, or to > >>email myself and/or Martin privately with your suggestions. [...] > > Ok, i have one question. > Can we keep the debate questions off this list? Otherwise the choice is > between leaving them unanswered for a couple of weeks until the debate, > or having them already answered on the list, and thus redundant for the > debate. Having different Subjects for different topics would be nice too... Probably not, unless we make debian-vote a moderated list. I hope that the debate questioners can start from ones posed here (which may be answered by some or all before IRC) and explore in those directions a little. DPL candidates may want to keep a copy of the list archive handy and paste URLs into IRC after a short summary answer. In short, I suggest answering them if you can, but try to avoid getting into long debates (or even *gasp* flamewars). Thinking about it, I think most of the debate shows and election hustings I've seen have had a mix of prepared and unprepared questions. The only one which immediately jumps to mind as entirely unprepared was Student Union Hustings and that's not really something I'd like to see debian emulate. Of course, until Helen and/or Martin explain the debate more, I'm just throwing ideas into the melting pot. -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > None of the individuals listed in the gender imbalance section were > consulted about this plan; we also think these issues are deeper than can be > fixed with a three month analysis. Furthermore, we do not believe this to > be a good-faith effort to address the relevant issues, given past behavior > of the candidate. I think you're overgeneralising and misreading: - Can you please explain the contact you have had with Gloria Steinem and Germaine Greer to confirm that they haven't been consulted? - Is anything to be fixed with the three-month analysis, or is it just to get some "first steps" recommendations? The DPL term is only twelve months, so I guess the arbitrary length is to give some time for krooger to work on it, if I'm being trusting. Actually, I do share your reservations about good/bad faith on this, but you do no good by spinning krooger either. I'm a lot more worried that the topic is an platform issue in this way. Why should the sex imbalance be seen as any more urgent than race, culture or any of the other tons of ways debian is demographically different? Is it a "put up or shut up" directed at that list of people? -- MJR/slef My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Subscribed to this list. No need to Cc, thanks. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:03:03 04:31 +]: > Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > None of the individuals listed in the gender imbalance section were > > consulted about this plan; we also think these issues are deeper than can be > > fixed with a three month analysis. Furthermore, we do not believe this to > > be a good-faith effort to address the relevant issues, given past behavior > > of the candidate. > > - Can you please explain the contact you have had with Gloria Steinem > and Germaine Greer to confirm that they haven't been consulted? Neither Gloria Steinem nor Germaine Greer were to be appointed as stakeholders, which is who I'm speaking for. They will be "invited" as opposed to "appointed". -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 04:31:08AM +, MJ Ray wrote: Is anything to be fixed with the three-month analysis, or is it just to get some "first steps" recommendations? The DPL term is only twelve months, so I guess the arbitrary length is to give some time for krooger to work on it, if I'm being trusting. Nothing is perfect on the first attempt. By publishing something quickly, we provide a basis for further research and study. After a two month period of public comment, the stakeholder committee would have another month to update their official document. Why should the sex imbalance be seen as any more urgent than race, culture or any of the other tons of ways debian is demographically different? Debian already has a debian-women mailing list for discussing such issues. This indicates there is are real and widespread concerns among Debian members which have not been addressed yet. Hopefully with more focused attention, a definite timeline, and official standing, the concerns can be articulated in a way that makes it easier to discuss and implement solutions. It is important that Debian not exclude anyone who has a valuable contribution to make. Jonathan -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Jonathan Walther Address: 12706 99 Ave, Surrey, BC V3V2P8 (Canada) Contact: 604-684-1319 (daytime) Contact: 604-582-9308 (morning and evening) Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine Puritan: Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura Patriarchy, Polygamy, Slavery === Fatherhood, Husbandry, Mastery Matriarchy, Monogamy, Prisons === Wickedness, Stupidity, Buggery signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:10:45PM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote: None of the individuals listed in the gender imbalance section were consulted about this plan The initial slate of stakeholder candidates were chosen for their publicly demonstrated commitment to gender equity in Debian. Should any candidate prefer to direct their efforts toward other activities, in my role as DPL, and in behalf of Debian, I will encourage and assist their efforts in any way possible. We also think these issues are deeper than can be fixed with a three month analysis. The longest journey begins with a single step. Not even the shortest journey begins without that single step! Jonathan -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Jonathan Walther Address: 12706 99 Ave, Surrey, BC V3V2P8 (Canada) Contact: 604-684-1319 (daytime) Contact: 604-582-9308 (morning and evening) Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine Puritan: Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:03:59PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote: > On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:10:45PM -0500, Erinn Clark wrote: > >None of the individuals listed in the gender imbalance section were > >consulted about this plan > > The initial slate of stakeholder candidates were chosen for their > publicly demonstrated commitment to gender equity in Debian. Should any > candidate prefer to direct their efforts toward other activities, But you saw no need to consult the people you named prior to including them in a list of "appointees" as to whether they would be willing to be a part of your little sham committee. Consultation with stakeholders *before* pushing them around might be a good step, don't you think? > >We also think these issues are deeper than can be fixed with a three > >month analysis. > > The longest journey begins with a single step. Not even the shortest > journey begins without that single step! Giving someone a shove down the stairs isn't a real winning strategy to starting a journey. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions
Whoops. I screwed up an edit. Let me redo it: Q: In June of 2004 it became apparent that SPI had deep set problems executing its chartered tasks. Donations equal to roughly half of Debian's total holdings did not make their way into the project's accounts due to poor (or non-existant) bookkeeping practices. It reflects poorly on Debian when donors are forced to correct for accounting errors in their own business caused by our mistakes. No typical business or professional organization can tolerate this type of failure in a mission critical area. As a DPL candidate, what actions will you take to insure that Debian's funds and other property are managed in a professional manner? How will you insure successful execution? Sorry, I should have read it out loud. On Wednesday 02 March 2005 8:42 pm, MJ Ray wrote: > Ean Schuessler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [...] > > > Q: In June of 2004 it became apparent that SPI had been having deep set > > responsibilities executing its chartered task. [...] -- Ean Schuessler, CTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions
Where can we put them? Submitting them "in secret" to be edited by the debate organizers seems incorrect. I think we just need to remain focused on the idea that we are editing questions to be posed to candidates, not attempting to answer the questions themselves. On Wednesday 02 March 2005 9:41 pm, Anthony Towns wrote: > Can we keep the debate questions off this list? Otherwise the choice is > between leaving them unanswered for a couple of weeks until the debate, > or having them already answered on the list, and thus redundant for the > debate. Having different Subjects for different topics would be nice too... -- Ean Schuessler, CTO [EMAIL PROTECTED] 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:28:05PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: The longest journey begins with a single step. Not even the shortest journey begins without that single step! Giving someone a shove down the stairs isn't a real winning strategy to starting a journey. I'm sorry you feel that way. If you decide not to participate, your presence on the committee will be missed. I think yours is a voice that deserves to be heard. Jonathan -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Jonathan Walther Address: 12706 99 Ave, Surrey, BC V3V2P8 (Canada) Contact: 604-684-1319 (daytime) Contact: 604-582-9308 (morning and evening) Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine Puritan: Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: The role of the DPL in technical decisions
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 06:18:19PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > As i understand the NEW handling is needed for : > > > > a) make sure the licence is ok, and the package is otherwise distribuable, > > and maybe setup the US-big-brother survey of developer's work. > > > > b) check if the new package upload doesn't split in too many subpackages > > or > > whatever and doesn't explode the archive: > > c) ensure that the packages are in the appropriate section. > > But making decisions about this really isn't the DPL's job. If you Nope, but engaging a discussion about this or favouring it or whatever may well be, in the same way that our preceding DPL brought advances to the NM/DAM issue. > disagree with how the ftp-masters handle it, then it ought to be > discussed with them. If they're unwilling to have that discussion, then > the DPL's involvement may be justifiable. Alas, discussion with the ftp-masters is something that has been real poor, the ftp-masters email address is a black hole, and the automated NEW email response still promise action in a week or so, which is manifestly not the case. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:43:14PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:28:05PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > >>The longest journey begins with a single step. Not even the shortest > >>journey begins without that single step! > > > >Giving someone a shove down the stairs isn't a real winning strategy to > >starting a journey. > > I'm sorry you feel that way. If you decide not to participate, your > presence on the committee will be missed. I think yours is a voice that > deserves to be heard. I prefer to participate in ways that are likely to be effective. Committees are formed so that decision will ever be made. The documentaries "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" are good references, but there are plenty of other examples. > Eukleia: Jonathan Walther > Address: 12706 99 Ave, Surrey, BC V3V2P8 (Canada) > Contact: 604-684-1319 (daytime) > Contact: 604-582-9308 (morning and evening) > Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine > Puritan: Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura It's kind of a pity you've stripped the sexist references from your .sig but I guess it's a good idea to avoid showing your true colours to the electorate, otherwise they'd be able to make their decisions based on the facts instead of your spin of them. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: DPL election IRC Debate - question about the NEW handling.
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:41:09PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote: > Sven Luther wrote: > >On Mon, Feb 28, 2005 at 09:29:41AM +, Helen Faulkner wrote: > >>You are welcome to either post suggested questions to this list, or to > >>email myself and/or Martin privately with your suggestions. If you wish > >>your questions to be anonymous, please email us privately and make that > >>clear. > >Ok, i have one question. > > Can we keep the debate questions off this list? Otherwise the choice is > between leaving them unanswered for a couple of weeks until the debate, > or having them already answered on the list, and thus redundant for the > debate. Having different Subjects for different topics would be nice too... I don't know, maybe email debate is better, it allows for more in depth discussion. > >I would like to know from the DPL candidates what is their opinion on way > >the > >ftp-masters handle the NEW queue, > > I think this is the wrong question. The right question to ask is what > the ftpmasters think of the way NEW is being handled, and what resources > they would appreciate. There's two reasons for this. One is the whole > point of having people running a particular area is that they know > what's going on; given the choice between a specialist's analysis of the > problems and a generalist's, take the former. The other is that asking > the DPL or DPL candidates to look for problems in the way others are > doing their jobs is just asking for unnecessary conflicts: there are > _always_ going to be problems in the way _every_ task within Debian is > handled. The issue isn't whether there are problems, it's which problems > are the most important to handle. And NEW processing doesn't even come > close. Well, the current status of it is somewhat discouraging for the developers, if not more. So i think i somehow have to disagree with that. And it ties in directly to the fact that ftp-master mailing list is a black-hole. > >and in particular how they handle the > >packages that are not really NEW : renamed binary/source packages, package > >split, new kernel version and new library version which need a new package > >upload. > > NEW is a technical term -- it means binary and source packages that are > not already in the archive under that name. So those packages *are* > really NEW, and that's not even a debatable question. I've already > addressed this topic with my ftpmaster hat on recently, see: > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2005/02/msg00225.html Mmm, wasn't aware of this one. But now, the question is the following : Do a 2.6.11 kernel package, which is exactly the same as the 2.6.10 kernel package except there was a new version, really need 2 possibly lengthy NEW delays ? It will happen in a previsible way for each new upstream version showing up, and don't really need any review. The same would go for soname-changes in shared libraries. Would not some wildcarding in the override file solve this easily, and at the same time diminish the amount of work needed to handle those by the ftp-masters ? > >Do you think there is currently a problem about this, and if so what do you > >intent to change in this regard. > > What I am doing about it is processing packages that are stuck in NEW > that are holding up higher priority tasks such as the release and > security updates. Other ftpmasters are doing likewise. Or those that some privilegied subgroup mention to you on irc :) > What I will do if elected is to support ftpmaster and other delegates in > their actions so they can focus on doing useful work according to their > own best judgement (which is, after all, why they're a delegate in the > first place), rather than having to justify their actions in response to > the latest fad complaint. Notice that i have been complaining about NEW since over a couple of years now. having packages sitting in NEW for > 1 month for just a minor detail which could as well be automated is not acceptable. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
[presumably you wanted this to the list and just misreplied] On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:47:19PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:28:05PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:03:59PM -0800, Jonathan Walther wrote: > >>The initial slate of stakeholder candidates were chosen for their > >>publicly demonstrated commitment to gender equity in Debian. Should > >>any candidate prefer to direct their efforts toward other activities, > > > >But you saw no need to consult the people you named prior to including > >them in a list of "appointees" as to whether they would be willing to > >be a part of your committee. Note the selective editing employed here. Compare this to my actual words: http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2005/03/msg00021.html Have you ever considered running for public office? Your "talents" would be appreciated there. > If you don't like my choices, feel free to form your own committee. As > DPL I will endorse whichever de facto committee already exists at the > time of my election. An informal group of individuals has been in operation for some time now, working quietly and effectively to remedy the perceived issues. Your endorsement or otherwise will have no effect on this group, and that is as it should be. - Matt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Clarification about krooger's platform
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 06:07:35PM +1100, Matthew Palmer wrote: If you don't like my choices, feel free to form your own committee. As DPL I will endorse whichever de facto committee already exists at the time of my election. An informal group of individuals has been in operation for some time now, working quietly and effectively to remedy the perceived issues. Your endorsement or otherwise will have no effect on this group, and that is as it should be. I'm glad you mentioned this. An "informal group" "working quietly and effectively" seems to lack accountability and public transparency. Debian is about openness. We have a strong commitment to justice and democracy in all that we do. If your goals are good, the perception of secrecy will do much to hinder them, and cast your motives in poor and base terms in the minds of onlookers. A perception of secret doings will cast a cloud of mistrust over Debian as a whole. Conversely, favorable public advertisement and participation can only help you prosper in your objectives, by supporting you with the assent of the entire body of Debian. God speed, Jonathan -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Jonathan Walther Address: 12706 99 Ave, Surrey, BC V3V2P8 (Canada) Contact: 604-684-1319 (daytime) Contact: 604-582-9308 (morning and evening) Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine Puritan: Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Question for candidate Towns [Was, Re: DPL election IRC Debate - Call for questions]
Hi Anthony, On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:41:09PM -0800, Anthony Towns wrote: > >I would like to know from the DPL candidates what is their opinion on way > >the > >ftp-masters handle the NEW queue, > I think this is the wrong question. The right question to ask is what > the ftpmasters think of the way NEW is being handled, and what resources > they would appreciate. As the following question is directed to you alone, I would appreciate an on-list answer rather than waiting for the IRC debate. (Any questions I may have for the debate will be sent privately to the moderators.) I believe that your previous mail satisfactorily answered the question about what you think of the way NEW is being handled. As someone who is both an ftpmaster and a DPL candidate, could you also tell us what resources you (or the ftpmasters as a group, if you believe it's appropriate to speak for them) would appreciate? If you feel this is off-topic for -vote, by all means please redirect the discussion to a more appropriate list. Thanks, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer signature.asc Description: Digital signature
