> On വ്യാഴം 05 ജനുവരി 2017 06:44 വൈകു, Ximin Luo wrote:
>> It's normal convention in any organisation or project to temporarily revert
>> a change that is controversial.
>> Adding 10 new people from an event, every time there is an event, is also
>> not sustainable as a team.
> I have organized many packaging workshops over the years. I don't grant
> access to any one just because they attended an event. I have granted
> them access only because I am convinced they qualify to get this access.
> They learned how to make a package lintian clean, how run a clean build
> using sbuild, make patches using quilt, how to repack. They did all this
> by themselves on 3-4 packages that was already packaged before they
> started with a new package.
OK, thanks for sharing these details, it really helps us to properly discuss
this situation. In terms of knowledge, it sounds like they are sufficiently
I still think it's better to have them make requests in their own time, instead
of all at once. This gives some time for us to read properly their request, and
distinguish and remember them as individuals separately from the other people
that also want to join.
It also gives them some time to practise these things and decide if they really
want to continue with it in the long run. I agree with Jonas that this team
(and other alioth teams) should be about maintenance, not just contributions.
(We can continue on this topic in the other subthread.)
>> Please respond to my points (about responsibility, maintenance and events)
>> instead of accusing me of "contempt" simply because I disagreed with your
> We do not have such rules for accepting a first package or granting them
> access to a project. I was only following the convention we have set for
> this team.
>> I also don't see why you are making such a fuss. The conditions I described
>> (making a request at a later date, individually) are not particularly hard
>> to achieve, and helps to confirm their true long-term interest in being a
>> team member, to the rest of us that are unsure about these events.
> I make a fuss because you are acting arbitrarily, making up policies and
> rules on the go.
I understand. I did not mean to arbitrarily impose anything - reverting their
membership was only meant as a temporary measure whilst the discussion is still