lack of manpower != inability to accept more (Re: infrastructure team rules)

2007-10-20 Thread Philippe Cloutier
Judging by history, I don't think our current approach is exactly flourishing. We've mentioned sysadmins, list admins, web admins, all of those had breakages. We haven't mentioned bug admins, ftp admins, docs admins, key admins, account admins, but all of them had fairly major issues too. It's ha

Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)

2007-10-20 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 11:21:11AM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: > On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > > If the team is functional, why would we even consider someone/something > > else deciding it? Revoking the teams' right to decide their own > > membership would go against

Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)

2007-10-20 Thread Clint Adams
On Fri, Oct 19, 2007 at 04:43:09PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > If the team is functional, why would we even consider someone/something else > deciding it? Revoking the teams' right to decide their own membership would > go against all recorded history (AFAIR), so one could question whether that > k

Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)

2007-10-20 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 12:50:00PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: > I think I've spotted another problem with the "second edit" - does it > fail if all members of a team become idle simultaneously? Should > there be a default of accepting a new member if the team doesn't > decide? I guess we should make th

Re: infrastructure team rules (second edit)

2007-10-20 Thread MJ Ray
Moritz Muehlenhoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Clint Adams wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 10:50:29PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > >> * Infrastructure teams have to decide to accept or reject candidates who > >> nominated themselves. The basic requirements are: > > > > Why should teams decide

Re: Re: Re: Frequency and reasons for team breakage (Re: infrastructure team rules)

2007-10-20 Thread Josip Rodin
On Sat, Oct 20, 2007 at 06:47:08AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote: > >> I don't understand what you mean. Like many, I know that there are > >> several "problematic" teams in Debian due to manpower issues. What I > >> asked is how many teams are broken beyond repair...to the point that new > >>

Re: Re: Re: Frequency and reasons for team breakage (Re: infrastructure team rules)

2007-10-20 Thread Philippe Cloutier
On Thu, Oct 18, 2007 at 01:32:31AM -0400, Philippe Cloutier wrote: > I don't understand what you mean. Like many, I know that there are > several "problematic" teams in Debian due to manpower issues. What I > asked is how many teams are broken beyond repair...to the point that new > manpower c