On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 09:05:44AM +0100, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of > the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to > DPMT[1][2]. I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages > from the Blends teams to DPT. I was happy with this move since it makes > sense. > > Recently we received lots of testing removal warnings in those Blends > teams due to RC bugs caused by Cython 3.0 and Python3.12 migrations. So > I did what I usually do in those teams: I dedicated quite some time in > team wide bug hunting. That way I squashed about 50 bugs on packages > where I was not in Uploaders. When doing so I usually run > routine-update on the package which basically streamlines packaging to > latest standards including calling Janitor tools which are so far > accepted inside DPT. > > I probably should have reviewed the DPT policy on Maintainership[3] more > carefully. In other teams, it's common for the Maintainer to be set to > the team, so I assumed it was just an oversight when I made this > change[4] when touching the package to fix RC bug #1058177. However, I > I was pointed immediately about the fact that I was mistaken according > to the current DPT policy. I apologize for this. However, the wording > of the comment on my commit was discouraging, especially considering I > was a volunteer who had fixed a critical bug. Because of this, I > decided to focus my efforts on fixing other critical bugs for the > moment. If the comment had started with a 'Thanks for fixing the > critical bug, but...' I likely would have corrected my mistake quickly. > The lack of respect from my teammate simply made me prioritize my time > on other issues that are more visible to our users. I wonder whether I > should propose another change to the policy about maintaining a kind and > polite language inside the team - but that's a different thing. > > While I applied the patch for another RC bug (#1063443) after >2 weeks > which triggered a RC bug in reportbug I remembered the "keep the > maintainer" policy. But I kept on doing Janitor like changes since > finally the package is maintained in a team where Janitor is accepted. > When doing so I failed the phrase "please contact the Maintainer for the > green light." I apoligize for this again. The response was another > volunteer-demotivating private mail (thus no quote) which also was > lacking the "Thanks for fixing"-phrase and degrading my changes as > "frivolous". > > So far what happened (seen from my possibly biased perspective). > > Why do I like to change the policy? > > The current wording provides some means to stop volunteer team members > helping out moving forward to speed up migrations and fix Debian wide > dependencies. It hides team maintained packages from a common BTS > view. When pointing my browser to > https://bugs.debian.org/team+pyt...@tracker.debian.org > I currently see 1339 open bugs (calculated by [UDD1]). This hides > another 309 [UDD2] bugs (>18% of team bugs) from our sight. To work > around this flaw I used an UDD query to find relevant Python3.12 bugs. > > When I think twice about the wording > Team in Uploaders is a weak statement of collaboration.[3] > I personally consider it a statement of *no* collaboration (which fits > the wording of the responses I've got). > > How can a team member for instance find another RC bug #1009424? Just > from reading the bug report it is pretty easy to fix but does not > feature any response in BTS. I came across this while looking into > Cython 3.0 bugs. The same source package (basemap) that had the open > Cython bug (#1056789, tagged patch since 2023-12-09) is featuring RC bug > (#1009424) that stayed unattended for 22 months? We all know volunteers > have limited time and I do not want to blame anybody in the team to not > care promptly about RC bugs. But what else is the sense of a packaging > team than stepping in situations for long standing RC bugs and RC bugs > tagged patch? > > This kind of situation wouldn't occur in teams where collaboration is > strong and communication is effective. My motivation to address these > long-ignored critical bugs diminishes when the maintainer opts for > "weak" cooperation and lacks respectful communication with potential > helpers. I see no difference to simply do a NMU. > > I've checked the current situation who is actually using the DPT team as > Uploaders[UDD3]. 66 of the 73 maintainers have less than 5 packages > some of these "Maintainers" are other teams and lots of the persons > listed as Maintainer are known to be MIA. This means the packages are > de-facto not maintained which is most probably an unwanted effect of the > current policy. I know other maintainers from other teams to be fine > with stronger team understanding. > > Since I consider the current situation as demotivating for newcomers > as well as long standing contributors I would like to suggest to drop > this "weak statement of collaboration" option from policy. I've attached > an according patch to the team policy[5]. I'm fine with creating a MR > to be discussed rather in Salsa than this mailing list - whatever seems > worthwhile to you.
+1 for this DPT policy change.
When I started to contribute I received these kind of comments that made
me think if I could really start contributing to Debian. As time went
by, I learned to read first who is the maintainer of the package before
read the bug reported, no matter if the package is (apparently) under the
DPT umbrella.
--
cheers,
Emmanuel Arias
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ eam...@debian.org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: 13796755BBC72BB8ABE2AEB5 FA9DEC5DE11C63F1
⠈⠳⣄
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
