Le Sat, Nov 07, 2026 at 06:51:55PM +0000, Sean Whitton a écrit : > Hello, > > After I CC'd the DFSG team on one of my messages to this thread, I got a > reply from Andrew McMillan off-list in which he explained his > motivations in sending people the LLM summaries (it seems to have been > just him working on this). > > Andrew dropped debian-devel from the CC list, so the reply went only to > me and to his teammates. In the message he said that he doesn't want to > spend his time in Debian reading and writing mailing list messages. And > clearly he puts this into action -- I don't think he has read anything > in this thread, and it seems like his teammates haven't either. > > I'm not sure it is sustainable to hold such a central role in the > project as the DFSG delegates do, and not engage with our primary means > of communication. At the same time, I don't feel free to say that all > delegates *must* be on debian-devel or something like that.
They do not have to be _subscribed_ to debian-devel. However this is not an excuse for not communicating with the project when asked for feed-back by direct email (especially by another delegate). The DPL need to remind the DFSG team of the boundary of the delegation. While the DFSG team cannot be required to process a package in a timely fashion or even at all, accepting or rejecting a package are positive actions that need to be done in accordance with the policy of the project. > Maybe we need to set some expectations here -- that all delegates need > to make it clear the venue in which they'd like to receive feedback (in > this case, it seems to be salsa issues). There is no real feeback in the Salsa issue I opened either. Cheers, Bill
