Hi,
For years, the DAM and NEW queues have been the major source of
frustration in the Debian community. Several attempts have been made to
improve the situation, but the problems have never been really solved so
far. And the queues are again in a bad state.
First, DAM: there are 19 prospective D
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> We should seek processes that scale. For example:
>=20
> - the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
>AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates, to verif=
y
> that the applicant has some knowledge about different aspects of De
On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
> things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
> are DM already.
Is that really problem? We need people who take the right decisions (and
that includes as
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
>> things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
>> are DM already.
>
> Is that really problem? We need people who take the right
Bernd Zeimetz schrieb am Dienstag, dem 23. Juni 2009:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >> No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
> >> things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
> >> are DM already
On 23/06/09 at 12:55 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >> No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
> >> things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
> >> are DM already.
> >
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For years, the DAM and NEW queues have been the major source of
> frustration in the Debian community.
really? *the* major source of frustration? really?
Cheers,
Julien
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@
On 2009-06-23, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> For years, the DAM and NEW queues have been the major source of
>> frustration in the Debian community.
>
> really? *the* major source of frustration? really?
at least for me, NEW
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> We need to compromise on the level of quality we expect from our
> prospective DDs and new packages.
I don't accept this premise.
> We should seek processes that scale. For example:
This is true - but does not *at all* imply compr
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Is that really problem? We need people who take the right decisions (and
> that includes asking questions when they don't know or are not sure
> about something), not people who can repeat all our documentation from
> memory.
And then we get what we've seen on -devel over
On 2009-06-23, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> We should seek processes that scale. For example:
>
> This is true - but does not *at all* imply compromising on quality.
full ack.
I would actually prefer a way where we can also improve qu
On 23/06/09 at 12:04 +0100, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > We need to compromise on the level of quality we expect from our
> > prospective DDs and new packages.
>
> I don't accept this premise.
>
> > We should seek processes that scale
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>
> - the NEW queue could also be based on peer-review: one could ask one
>or two another DDs to certify that the package is OK (licensing-wise)
> to be uploaded to unstable. Then ftpmasters would just be responsible
> for ver
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Some of them have been FD-approved a very, very long time ago:
> Alexander Gerasiov has been FD-approved on 2009-01-10, and Asheesh
> Loria on 2008-12-22 (but apparently, because of an unanswered RC
> bug, DAM postponed approving him
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 12:55 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
are DM already
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
> "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
>
> What would we be missing that way?
What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with the comment
"I'm not entirely
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> That being said, having to be a DM for some time before tying up the
> resources for the whole NM process does sound like a good idea.
Definitely.
But first I'd like to see DM integrated more into the NM page and the keyring
being maintained by FD and without jetring... a
Julien BLACHE wrote:
> That said, NM is a pain for the applicants *and* the AMs from what
> I've witnessed recently. There's certainly room for improvements in
> the process, but it doesn't look like FD is open to much changes in
> the way NM works today (again, from what I've witnessed recently).
Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
>> - the NEW queue could also be based on peer-review: one could ask one
>>or two another DDs to certify that the package is OK (licensing-wise)
>> to be uploaded to unstable. Then ftpmasters would just
On 23/06/09 at 14:29 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
> > "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
> >
> > What would we be missing that way?
>
> What you miss is that I move all p
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
>> "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
>>
>> What would we be missing that way?
>
> What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
On 23/06/09 at 14:37 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
> >> - the NEW queue could also be based on peer-review: one could ask one
> >>or two another DDs to certify that the package is OK (licensing-wise)
>
Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>> On 23/06/09 at 12:55 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
> things asked during the NM proces
[Lucas Nussbaum, 2009-06-23]
> On 23/06/09 at 12:06 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > No way. Most reports show that a lot of NMs don't know about a lot of
> > things asked during the NM process. This is true even for those who
> > are DM already.
>
> Is that really problem? We need people who take
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
> the comment "I'm not entirely happy, but its your job to decide..."
OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
decision is taken. Eithe
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 14:29 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>>> I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
>>> "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
>>>
>>> What would we be missing that way?
>> What you mis
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
> > the comment "I'm not entirely happy, but its your job to decide..."
>
> OK, then what I'm proposing is to ide
On 23/06/09 at 14:34 +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Julien BLACHE wrote:
>
> > That said, NM is a pain for the applicants *and* the AMs from what
> > I've witnessed recently. There's certainly room for improvements in
> > the process, but it doesn't look like FD is open to much changes in
> > the w
On Tue Jun 23 11:30, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> - the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
>AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates, to verify
> that the applicant has some knowledge about different aspects of Debian
> packaging. Then the AM would ask
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> From an NM point of view, my feeling is:
>
> "I hope the Keyring Maintainers and the DSA don't feel like reviewing
> everything
> *again* to add my key to the keyring and to give me access to the developer
> machines"
Speaking with my DSA hat
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Charles Plessy wrote:
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum a écrit :
- the NEW queue could also be based on peer-review: one could ask one
or two another DDs to certify that the package is OK (licensing-wise)
to be uploaded to unstable. Then ftpmaste
Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:29:20PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with
>>> the comment "I'm not entirely happy, but its your job to decide..."
>> OK, then wh
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
> > decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM.
> It's DAM. DAM has always been the position that decides who is a DD and
> who isn't. The whole FD/NM thing i
On 23/06/09 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > > OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
> > > decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM.
> > It's DAM. DAM has always been the position that
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 15:30 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:55:42PM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
OK, then what I'm proposing is to identify one single entity where the
decision is taken. Either is FD or is DAM.
>>> It's DAM. DAM has always
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:30:53AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For years, the DAM and NEW queues have been the major source of
> frustration in the Debian community. Several attempts have been made to
> improve the situation, but the problems have never been really solved so
> far. And
On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> NM process:
>
> > - the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
> >AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates,
> ...
>
> This *might* work if we solve what in my opinion is the main problem here:
> DD
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
NM process:
- the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates,
...
This *might* work if we solve what in my opinion is the main problem he
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 16:45:10 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
> advocated them for DM). The reason is that the "unassigned applicants"
> list is huge, so, whe
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
> advocated them for DM). The reason is that the "unassigned applicants"
> list is huge, so,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
>>
>> And we already have DM to avoid the frustration to not being able to upload
>> trivial packaging changes.
>> Now DM has been here for some time, we might consider improve it, but
Bernd Zeimetz dijo [Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 12:55:15PM +0200]:
> > Is that really problem? We need people who take the right decisions (and
> > that includes asking questions when they don't know or are not sure
> > about something), not people who can repeat all our documentation from
> > memory.
>
Bernd Zeimetz dijo [Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:54:17PM +0200]:
> > If there are too many emails, maybe you should reduce the number of
> > emails by reducing the number of questions asked?
>
> No.
> The number of emails rises only if candidates don't answer in a useful way and
> the AM needs to ask b
On 23/06/09 at 16:09 +0100, Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> >On 23/06/09 at 16:18 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> >>
> >> And we already have DM to avoid the frustration to not being able to upload
> >> trivial packaging changes.
> >> Now DM
On 23/06/09 at 17:10 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> > that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
> > advocated them for DM). The reason is
Emilio Pozuelo Monfort dijo [Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:43:55PM +0200]:
> >> I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
> >> "just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
> >>
> >> What would we be missing that way?
> >
> > What you miss is that I move all pr
On Tuesday 23 June 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Chris Lamb benefited from a lot of factors. [...]
That sounds a lot like my own NM process. I guess what this proves is that
really active people who already have been involved with the problem for
a decent time and already have shown both their s
Sune Vuorela writes:
> sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution here
> is a package split, but I often end up working around it in other
> ways, just because of NEW.
In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in
rare situations. That never seemed
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 06:26:02PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 17:10 +0200, Ana Guerrero wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:45:10PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> > > that they could start NM, while in
On Tue, 23 Jun 2009, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Your concept fails - usually the problematic issues are not even
> mentioned in debian/copyright. And if somebody is able to download
> packages from the NEW queue Debian is distributing them.
This could be worked around by just showing the diff.gz and a
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'd be perfectly fine with FD being the last review step, and DAM
"just" in charge of creating the account, trusting FD judgement.
What would we be missing that way?
What you miss is that I move all problematic candidates to DAM with the comment
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
Chris Lamb benefited from a lot of factors. He waiting a long time
before applying, so he couldn't have been more ready to be a DD. He was
assigned an AM after only a month of waiting, his AM was very active
at the time and prioritized his NM process quite high, so he
could
Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
>
> I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
> advocated them for DM). The reason is that the "unassigned applicants"
> list is huge, so, when considering whether you should advoc
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:47:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Has Debian even ever received a cease and desist letter from a IP
> lawyer? Under which circumstances? I am bit tired of lawyers being
> mentioned each time the NEW problems are discussed, while it seems,
> based on history, that De
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:56:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sune Vuorela writes:
>
> > sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution here
> > is a package split, but I often end up working around it in other
> > ways, just because of NEW.
>
> In my experience, package spli
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Sune Vuorela writes:
>
>> sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution here
>> is a package split, but I often end up working around it in other
>> ways, just because of NEW.
>
> In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in
> ra
Russ Allbery (23/06/2009):
> Sune Vuorela writes:
> > sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution
> > here is a package split, but I often end up working around it in
> > other ways, just because of NEW.
>
> In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except
This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
> advocated them for DM). The reason is that the "unassigned applicants"
> list is huge, so, when considering
On 23/06/09 at 22:35 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> > I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> > that they could start NM, while in the meantime, I wouldn't have
> > advocated them for DM). The reason is that the "una
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:18:34PM +0200, Ana Guerrero a écrit :
>
> And we already have DM to avoid the frustration to not being able to upload
> trivial packaging changes. Now DM has been here for some time, we might
> consider improve it, but that is another issues.
Hi all,
how Debian would
Le Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 08:13:22AM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit :
>
> But all of that said, it still needs trusted people to review the
> packages, which is where we've traditionally started to have scaling
> problems.
This is where a public peer-review has an advantage: when submitting and
revie
Michael Banck writes:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 09:56:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Sune Vuorela writes:
>>> sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution here
>>> is a package split, but I often end up working around it in other
>>> ways, just because of NEW.
>> In my e
Cyril Brulebois writes:
> Russ Allbery (23/06/2009):
>> Sune Vuorela writes:
>>> sometimes, I look at a issue and think that the correct solution
>>> here is a package split, but I often end up working around it in
>>> other ways, just because of NEW.
>> In my experience, package splits go thr
63 matches
Mail list logo
