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
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 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
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
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
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.
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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:
> 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
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
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
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 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
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 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 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 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
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 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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 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
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 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 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 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 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 06:03:41PM +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
[ 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,
Le Sat, Mar 21, 2009 at 02:27:55PM +, Matthew Johnson a écrit :
>
> So far I don't think I've seen anyone objecting to the overall approach
> though, which is good. I think it allows us to start discussing more
> specific implementation details.
Dear Matthew,
there are so many discussions th
On Mon Mar 16 13:30, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> There are different kinds of packages in debian that require different
> skills:
>
> - binary packages, data packages
> - simple library packages
> - mixed binary/library/data packages
>
> Also there is a big difference between the NEW packages a
["Followup-To:" header set to gmane.linux.debian.devel.new-maintainer.]
On 2009-03-14, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if you allow me to share a thought here even though I am not a developer
> and as such do not have any say in this.
>
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> My goals with changing the membe
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> Matthew Johnson wrote:
>> My goals with changing the membership procedures are:
>>
>> - To turn NM into a more evolutionary process where some privileges and
>>rights are granted earlier in the process and the qualifications for
>> the
>>late
Matthew Johnson wrote:
My goals with changing the membership procedures are:
- To turn NM into a more evolutionary process where some privileges and
rights are granted earlier in the process and the qualifications for
the
later parts are based mainly on the work done
Matthew Johnson writes:
> On Sat Mar 14 12:46, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> We can certainly expand the definition of technical work that qualifies
>> for political voting membership and not focus it solely on packaging,
>> but I think we're doing reasonably well with the basic assumption that
>> the p
Russ Allbery writes:
> Matthew Johnson writes:
>
> > - To decouple of technical and political positions in the membership
>
> For what it's worth, I disagree with this goal, assuming that I
> understand what you mean by it. I think that such a decoupling would
> be a significant change in how
o achieve
> improvements, your *goal* with changing the membership procedures should
> look something like
>
> Aid Debian to recruit skilled, cooperative, and highly dedicated new
> volunteers and ensuring that Debian membership is only given to people
> having these necessary qua
On Sat Mar 14 12:46, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > - To decouple of technical and political positions in the membership
>
> We can certainly expand the definition of technical work that qualifies
> for political voting membership and not focus it solely on packaging, but
> I think we're doing reasonably
On Sat Mar 14 17:24, Enrico Zini wrote:
> However, we have had and do have several uncontroversially outstanding
> and very active people in need of an account, and they should be kicked
> *in*, and fast. As an AM I've seen a few, and inflicting a long NM
> process on them is a waste: their skil
* Micah Anderson:
> There are some companies that have had their 'bottom-line' demonstrably
> impacted in significant ways by open source and have undertaken various
> dubious mechanisms to destabilize and discredit open-source. Microsoft
> actually acknowledged to the SEC[0] in its required filin
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> Micah Anderson wrote:
>> All of this is just fun wingnut ramblings, but I think serves to
>> illustrate that the artificial barrier imposed by the arduous NM
>> process is not that significant of a difficulty for getting inside
>> Debian and we cannot use this as mechanism
Matthew Johnson writes:
> My goals with changing the membership procedures are:
[...]
> - To decouple of technical and political positions in the membership
For what it's worth, I disagree with this goal, assuming that I understand
what you mean by it. I think that such a decoupling would be
.. snip ...]
>
> While the aims you list themself may be laudable to achieve
> improvements, your *goal* with changing the membership procedures should
> look something like
>
> Aid Debian to recruit skilled, cooperative, and highly dedicated new
> volunteers and ensurin
our *goal* with changing the membership procedures should
look something like
Aid Debian to recruit skilled, cooperative, and highly dedicated new
volunteers and ensuring that Debian membership is only given to people
having these necessary qualities.
Your idea of a good goal may vary,
Micah Anderson wrote:
> All of this is just fun wingnut ramblings, but I think serves to
> illustrate that the artificial barrier imposed by the arduous NM process
> is not that significant of a difficulty for getting inside Debian and we
> cannot use this as mechanism for making Debian "secure".
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Enrico Zini wrote:
> Yes, and there are cheaper ways than getting the black hat to become a
> full DD: with a thousand of DDs we have a thousand possibly vulnerable
> points of entry. Frankly, if anyone wanted to attack Debian, they'd
> have to be remarkably silly to pla
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 04:25:21PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 14 March 2009, Micah Anderson wrote:
> > All of this is just fun wingnut ramblings, but I think serves to
> > illustrate that the artificial barrier imposed by the arduous NM
> > process is not that significant of a difficulty
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Micah Anderson wrote:
> All of this is just fun wingnut ramblings, but I think serves to
> illustrate that the artificial barrier imposed by the arduous NM
> process is not that significant of a difficulty for getting inside
> Debian and we cannot use this as mechanism fo
* Frans Pop [2009-03-14 09:25-0400]:
> On Saturday 14 March 2009, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
> > IMHO that's a false notion of "security through laziness" :).
>
> Black hats are lazy too. They go after easy targets for maximum profit.
> Getting into Debian currently takes a certain amount of de
[still not subscribed to -newmaint, just keeping the cross-post]
Frans Pop wrote:
> On Saturday 14 March 2009, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
>> IMHO that's a false notion of "security through laziness" :).
>
> Black hats are lazy too. They go after easy targets for maximum profit.
> Getting into D
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Leo 'costela' Antunes wrote:
> IMHO that's a false notion of "security through laziness" :).
Black hats are lazy too. They go after easy targets for maximum profit.
Getting into Debian currently takes a certain amount of demonstrated
dedication to the project through ac
[I'm only subscribed to -project, but keeping the cross-post]
Frans Pop wrote:
> The effort needed to go through the NM procedure also has an IMO import
> security aspect: it's quite unlikely that a "black hat" would be willing
> to make that effort to get in a position where (s)he could introdu
On Saturday 14 March 2009, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> Being part of the project, particularly with upload rights, is
> something I believe _should_ be difficult. This restriction on access
> to the archive is one of our strengths, it gives us a higher quality of
> packaging (yes, there are exceptions
While we were still working on Lenny, Joerg proposed [0] changing what sort of
membership the project has. This was postponed [1] until after Lenny was
released, which it now has. Since I have also suggested something similar in
the past [2], I'm quite interested in this and so this email is intend
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 22:46:32 +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> What the proposals says is that any two out of the (currently)
> thousand can block all entrants. This is scary to me.
>
And if they do that, the rest of us can get them to stop (be it by peer
pressure or removal from the project
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 07:53:08PM +, Clint Adams wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 04:42:14PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
>> That's what I mean with "this doesn't scale to big groups". Above
>> some size (which Debian has - by far - exceeded), the opposite
>> constraints on the number of
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 04:42:14PM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> That's what I mean with "this doesn't scale to big groups". Above some
> size (which Debian has - by far - exceeded), the opposite constraints
> on the number of people that have to endorse become contradictory.
How does the sta
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. (...)
> I think we should go in the opposite direction: massively simplify
> the whole membership thing.
I am naturally qui
Dear all,
thanks to Julien who blogged about it, I discovered that Steve also agrees that
the reform should be done after the Lenny release, through a vote.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/04/debian_rumpus/
What we have experienced in the past weeks has been "killing the fun" for all
of us.
I promised to get back to re-thinking Debian membership processes. After
everything that's happened, I think it would be best to postpone
discussions about this until after Lenny is released.
I am planning to start or join that discussion after the release. (And,
yes, I hope to do a DEP
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 04:20:37PM +, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Note that the whole point is to know that the person in question shall
> > know his/her limits, and know who to ask when in trouble. Not everybody
> > should be a top class programmer if what he/she'll eve
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Note that the whole point is to know that the person in question shall
> know his/her limits, and know who to ask when in trouble. Not everybody
> should be a top class programmer if what he/she'll ever do is packaging
> pure perl extensions. OTOH the first time suck a pack
Ar 26/10/2008 am 21:57, ysgrifennodd Lars Wirzenius:
> la, 2008-10-25 kello 09:59 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli kirjoitti:
> > A scenario I want to avoid for example is that newcomers can alter the
> > keyring adding tens of "friends". Such a possibility would imply that
> > if Debian as a project fail
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:56:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Secondly, What exactly to these members of the project do, if
> they do not vote or upload packages?
They might commit to the webml repository or sent mails to debian-news,
e.g.
Of course, they could just vote as well,
la, 2008-10-25 kello 09:59 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli kirjoitti:
> A scenario I want to avoid for example is that newcomers can alter the
> keyring adding tens of "friends". Such a possibility would imply that
> if Debian as a project fails *once* in checking IDs and motivations
> for *a single* new
pe, 2008-10-24 kello 23:47 -0700, Steve Langasek kirjoitti:
> I think it would be more sensible to kick out the people who don't do
> anything for the project *except* vote.
That is certainly a good point.
The reason I propose counting voting only is that that's the only action
all DD would have
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 07:59:58AM +, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:53:46PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > pe, 2008-10-24 kello 12:18 +0200, Peter Palfrader kirjoitti:
> > > On Fri, 24 Oct 2008, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> > > > * The keyrings shall be maintained in a way
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:46:13PM +, Helen Faulkner wrote:
>
> Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> > Ana Guerrero a écrit :
> [...]
> >>> * Membership ends 24 months after they're given, or after the latest
> >>> participation in a vote arranged by the project's Secretary. Members
> >>> may retire th
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 06:12:48AM +, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of the issues I have with this proposal is that there seems
> to be, by design, absolutely no consideration about skill levels or
> quality of developers. I'll concede that the current process might not
> do
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:49:35PM +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > Concrete proposal: max(Q, 20) endorsements, two existing members
> > together can veto. The veto can be done anonymously via the Debian
> > Account Manager to avoid peer pressure to not veto. The DAM only
> > counts the endor
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 05:59:40PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> > Concrete proposal: max(Q, 20) endorsements, two existing members
> > together can veto. The veto can be done anonymously via the Debian
> > Account Manager to avoid peer pressure to not veto. The DAM only
> > counts the e
On Sat,25.Oct.08, 21:56:09, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> If you are not voting or uploading packages, everythign else you
> >> do can be done without a maintainers hat on, so you do not need to be
> >> a DD.
> >
> > Does this mean you oppose to the concept of having non-packagers being
1 - 100 of 155 matches
Mail list logo
