Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Sandro Tosi]

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 8:59 AM, Steve Langasek  wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:32:33AM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Michael Gilbert  wrote:
>> > I wonder if the core issue at hand here is simply that the python VCSs
>> > are on a resource writable by only one person (meaning no one else can
>> > contribute)?  See:
>> > https://code.launchpad.net/~doko/python/pkg2.7-debian
>> > https://code.launchpad.net/~doko/python/pkg3.2-debian
>
>> It's not (or not only), at least not for me, but it states quite
>> clearly the level of collaboration he expects from other fellow DDs -
>> none.
>
> It is absurd to claim that a documented, public, DVCS branch for the
> packaging is a statement that the maintainer doesn't expect collaboration
> from other DDs.

so why it's not a repository where all DDs has access, like ones on alioth.

> There has been no clearer indication to me in this bug's
> history that your pursuit of this issue is not based on concerns for the
> technical maintenance of Python, but is instead the result of some personal
> dislike that you have for Matthias.

false, but fell free to think so - go re-read the whole bug, there
*are* tech reasons (last one? python2.6 removal discussed with only
release-team and without any consultantion with debian-python) and
there are also behavioral reasons. If you prefer to skip the former
and look only at the latter (from me), it's your decision.

> Regardless of any other outcome of a vote on this issue, you can be assured
> that I think you would be an unfit maintainer for the Python packages, and I
> will not vote in favor of any option that puts you in a position of
> authority over Python in Debian.

you wouldn't have voted like this anyway, or for any other options
that reduce the relevance of Matthias in Python maintainance. you
probably already said that, now you're just reaffirming it.

> When this bug report was first filed, I
> had no particular reason to think you were unreasonable, despite your having
> signed on to a petition which I believed was ill-considered and misinformed.
> Your various comments since then have changed my mind; you never miss an
> opportunity to insult or attack Matthias, and generally make the
> debian-python mailing list a hostile environment not only for Matthias, but
> also for anyone else who works on Ubuntu or is employed by Canonical.  Some
> of us have thicker skins than others and are more able to tolerate this
> behavior, but it is nevertheless poisonous and it's entirely inappropriate
> for someone seeking to hold a leadership role within Debian - not because
> Ubuntu and Canonical are special, but precisely because they *aren't* and
> you persist in singling them out for ridicule.

the Canonical employee defending the Canonical employees. You're
wearing too many hats at the same time. but of course, how cares.

> You are in no position to say that Matthias does not want collaboration from
> his fellow DDs when it's you who continues to make it very clear that you
> want him out.

yeah, please have a look at the gcc-4.7 as default switch.

As always, you've been very passionate to rebut all my emails (of any
kind), but very less in trying to verify if the technical reasons
behind this bug are true and if intervention is needed and do
something about it. More than 2 years have passed, nothing has
changed.

-- 
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Steve Langasek]

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 09:32:33AM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Michael Gilbert  wrote:
> > I wonder if the core issue at hand here is simply that the python VCSs
> > are on a resource writable by only one person (meaning no one else can
> > contribute)?  See:
> > https://code.launchpad.net/~doko/python/pkg2.7-debian
> > https://code.launchpad.net/~doko/python/pkg3.2-debian

> It's not (or not only), at least not for me, but it states quite
> clearly the level of collaboration he expects from other fellow DDs -
> none.

It is absurd to claim that a documented, public, DVCS branch for the
packaging is a statement that the maintainer doesn't expect collaboration
from other DDs.  There has been no clearer indication to me in this bug's
history that your pursuit of this issue is not based on concerns for the
technical maintenance of Python, but is instead the result of some personal
dislike that you have for Matthias.

Regardless of any other outcome of a vote on this issue, you can be assured
that I think you would be an unfit maintainer for the Python packages, and I
will not vote in favor of any option that puts you in a position of
authority over Python in Debian.  When this bug report was first filed, I
had no particular reason to think you were unreasonable, despite your having
signed on to a petition which I believed was ill-considered and misinformed. 
Your various comments since then have changed my mind; you never miss an
opportunity to insult or attack Matthias, and generally make the
debian-python mailing list a hostile environment not only for Matthias, but
also for anyone else who works on Ubuntu or is employed by Canonical.  Some
of us have thicker skins than others and are more able to tolerate this
behavior, but it is nevertheless poisonous and it's entirely inappropriate
for someone seeking to hold a leadership role within Debian - not because
Ubuntu and Canonical are special, but precisely because they *aren't* and
you persist in singling them out for ridicule.

You are in no position to say that Matthias does not want collaboration from
his fellow DDs when it's you who continues to make it very clear that you
want him out.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Sandro Tosi]

Hello Michael,

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 3:34 AM, Michael Gilbert  wrote:
> I wonder if the core issue at hand here is simply that the python VCSs
> are on a resource writable by only one person (meaning no one else can
> contribute)?  See:
> https://code.launchpad.net/~doko/python/pkg2.7-debian
> https://code.launchpad.net/~doko/python/pkg3.2-debian

It's not (or not only), at least not for me, but it states quite
clearly the level of collaboration he expects from other fellow DDs -
none.

> If that's the case, then perhaps a simple voteable option would be a
> request to re-home the VCS somewhere that can support multiple
> contributors (possibly stating preferably on a Debian resource like
> alioth)?

sadly a shared/writable VCS doesn't make a team, when someone doesn't
play team. I don't know what TC thinks about adding that option, maybe
it might be merged in a "soft" option (proposing a shared workflow
with shared tools).

> Perhaps, the alternative team could start the alioth VCS on their own
> anyway, and use that to sort of NMU maintain the package (while it
> appears to be somewhat ignored now).  Sort of like we're doing for
> wine:
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-wine-party/2012-May/thread.html

We could have done that, but we thought that appealing to TC would
have been the right way to resolve the issue.

Regards,
-- 
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Michael Gilbert]

I wonder if the core issue at hand here is simply that the python VCSs
are on a resource writable by only one person (meaning no one else can
contribute)?  See:
https://code.launchpad.net/~doko/python/pkg2.7-debian
https://code.launchpad.net/~doko/python/pkg3.2-debian

If that's the case, then perhaps a simple voteable option would be a
request to re-home the VCS somewhere that can support multiple
contributors (possibly stating preferably on a Debian resource like
alioth)?

Perhaps, the alternative team could start the alioth VCS on their own
anyway, and use that to sort of NMU maintain the package (while it
appears to be somewhat ignored now).  Sort of like we're doing for
wine:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-wine-party/2012-May/thread.html

Best wishes,
Mike



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Sandro Tosi]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 21:36, Jakub Wilk  wrote:
> * Russ Allbery , 2012-04-27, 20:20:
>> Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:
> [...]
>>>
>>> Considering the potential incompatibilities, it seems that the possible
>>> maintenance "teams" boil down to:
>>>
>>> - a maintenance team formed by Sandro
>>> - a maintenance team formed by Matthias and Barry
>
> Did Matthias even express his willingness to collaborate with Barry?

Or, from the other side, what's preventing Barry to collaborate with
Matthias *right now*, without waiting? I can't find signs of any
Barry's contributions in the Debian changelogs for Python interpreters
or -defaults packages (but there was some minor fixups in Ubuntu in
the past).

Since we are at it, there are recurring problems reappearing:

- python2.6 removal willingness was only reported to debian-release
[1] (opinionatedly late in the development process) without any
collaboration/coordination (request) with python modules/apps team.
- python2.7 (a security-fix release, which is outdated since 20 days,
like python3.2, while Ubuntu had them uploaded even before the
official availability announce[2]) is keeping FTBFS in mips while on
GNU/kFreeBSD was fixed by a NMU helping those archs catching up, as
confirmed by release team on irc.

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2012/04/msg00218.html
[2] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-announce-list/2012-April/009420.html

History repeating?

-- 
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:20:33PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Considering the potential incompatibilities, it seems that the possible
> > maintenance "teams" boil down to:

> > - a maintenance team formed by Sandro
> > - a maintenance team formed by Matthias and Barry
> > - a maintenance team formed by Jakub

> So, for moving forward with this, these seem like three obvious voting
> options to me.  I will assume that the Matthias and Barry team would be
> the "decline to change anything" option.

If these are the only available "teams", and the TC cares about the
principle of having a team, it doesn't seem to me that we're achieving much
by voting on these particular options.

Are there any members of the TC who are of the opinion that replacing
Matthias as python maintainer with a team of one is an appropriate course of
action?

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Jakub Wilk]

* Russ Allbery , 2012-04-27, 20:20:

Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:

[...]
Considering the potential incompatibilities, it seems that the 
possible maintenance "teams" boil down to:


- a maintenance team formed by Sandro
- a maintenance team formed by Matthias and Barry


Did Matthias even express his willingness to collaborate with Barry?


- a maintenance team formed by Jakub
So, for moving forward with this, these seem like three obvious voting 
options to me. I will assume that the Matthias and Barry team would be 
the "decline to change anything" option.


How so? TTBOMK Barry is not a maintainer of any Python interpreter 
package.


It should also be noted that Jakub, in spite of his availability, has 
made clear that he does not support removing the current maintainer by 
the means of a tech-ctte vote.

[...]
This does, to me, raise the question of whether Jakub should be listed 
as a separate option, or whether there's no meaningful distinction 
between a maintenance team formed by Jakub and a maintenance team 
formed by Matthias and Barry.


I'm confused. Those "teams" are not only distinct but also disjoint.

I suppose they're distinct in the sense that the tech-ctte could decide 
that Matthias should not have a position of authority over the package 
at all, but that doesn't seem particularly sensible to me in that it's 
rather difficult for us to make it stick going forward while still 
appointing someone who doesn't think that Matthias should be replaced.


I don't find it difficult at all. If, for example:
1) ctte believed that Matthias cannot keeping his maintainer position no 
matter what, and
2) both jwilk and ctte believed that the [jwilk] team is strictly better 
than the [morph] team,
it would be bizarre to choose [morph] rather than [jwilk] just because 
jwilk prefers status quo.


--
Jakub Wilk



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Barry Warsaw]

On Apr 28, 2012, at 04:34 PM, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

>Barry is fine in joining the current "team", Jakub is not. (Of course
>they can provide different indications here, but that's my understanding
>of the situation at the time of last interactions with them.)

I would be fine joining a team with Matthias and Jakub.  Since I don't support
removing Matthias as maintainer, I would not agree to a maintenance team
without him.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 01:00:16PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> If neither Barry nor Jakub would support removing Matthias as a
> maintainer, would there be the possiblity of both of them joining the
> maintainer team? (Barry, Jakub, Matthias: comments on that are
> appreciated - after all, if the goal is to have a maintainer team, it
> can only work if it works for you.)

The answer to that is already in the thread I've pointed at.

Barry is fine in joining the current "team", Jakub is not. (Of course
they can provide different indications here, but that's my understanding
of the situation at the time of last interactions with them.)

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ..   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ..   . . o
Debian Project Leader...   @zack on identi.ca   ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Andreas Barth]

* Stefano Zacchiroli (lea...@debian.org) [120428 10:45]:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:20:33PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > This does, to me, raise the question of whether Jakub should be listed as
> > a separate option, or whether there's no meaningful distinction between a
> > maintenance team formed by Jakub and a maintenance team formed by Matthias
> > and Barry.  I suppose they're distinct in the sense that the tech-ctte
> > could decide that Matthias should not have a position of authority over
> > the package at all, but that doesn't seem particularly sensible to me in
> > that it's rather difficult for us to make it stick going forward while
> > still appointing someone who doesn't think that Matthias should be
> > replaced.
> >
> > (Also, why is Jakub listed as a separate option but not Barry?)
> 
> Good point, that is a indeed an incoherence among the listed options.
> 
> I've not listed Barry as a separate option after having verified that he
> does not support removing Matthias as a maintainer. For the very same
> reason, I shouldn't probably have listed Jakub, but I wanted to pass on
> the information of him volunteering anyhow, in case it might be
> useful.

If neither Barry nor Jakub would support removing Matthias as a
maintainer, would there be the possiblity of both of them joining the
maintainer team? (Barry, Jakub, Matthias: comments on that are
appreciated - after all, if the goal is to have a maintainer team, it
can only work if it works for you.)


Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:20:33PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> This does, to me, raise the question of whether Jakub should be listed as
> a separate option, or whether there's no meaningful distinction between a
> maintenance team formed by Jakub and a maintenance team formed by Matthias
> and Barry.  I suppose they're distinct in the sense that the tech-ctte
> could decide that Matthias should not have a position of authority over
> the package at all, but that doesn't seem particularly sensible to me in
> that it's rather difficult for us to make it stick going forward while
> still appointing someone who doesn't think that Matthias should be
> replaced.
>
> (Also, why is Jakub listed as a separate option but not Barry?)

Good point, that is a indeed an incoherence among the listed options.

I've not listed Barry as a separate option after having verified that he
does not support removing Matthias as a maintainer. For the very same
reason, I shouldn't probably have listed Jakub, but I wanted to pass on
the information of him volunteering anyhow, in case it might be
useful.

So, assuming the two of them feel equally strong about that (I've no
reason to believe the contrary, but I'm Cc:-ing both of them just in
case), either Barry should be considered as an option too or (more
likely) Jakub shouldn't.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ..   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ..   . . o
Debian Project Leader...   @zack on identi.ca   ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Russ Allbery]

Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:

> Not having heard other options, I've proceed with the verification
> mentioned above. Everything has happened publicly and is hence available
> for your review starting from [1].  My own conclusions on the potential
> teams, based on that thread have been posted on list [2] and also
> attached to this mail for your convenience.

> According to the thread, the amount of volunteers willing to help has
> changed but not diminished, although it seems to be more scattered now.

This was very helpful.  Thank you!

> To conclude, let me remind that the purpose of this exercise was only to
> verify the availability of the team that volunteered 2 years ago, in
> order to give more data to the tech-ctte for deciding what team (if any)
> should go in the vote ballots.

> I hope this could help and that the tech-ctte have now all the input
> needed to quickly come to a conclusion on this issue, one way or
> another.

[...]

> Considering the potential incompatibilities, it seems that the possible
> maintenance "teams" boil down to:

> - a maintenance team formed by Sandro
> - a maintenance team formed by Matthias and Barry
> - a maintenance team formed by Jakub

So, for moving forward with this, these seem like three obvious voting
options to me.  I will assume that the Matthias and Barry team would be
the "decline to change anything" option.

> It should also be noted that Jakub, in spite of his availability, has
> made clear that he does not support removing the current maintainer by
> the means of a tech-ctte vote.  Barry clarified in mail to me (asking me
> to mention it here) that he does not support removing the current
> maintainer either, which is why I've listed Barry in co-maintenance with
> Matthias, but not with Sandro.

This does, to me, raise the question of whether Jakub should be listed as
a separate option, or whether there's no meaningful distinction between a
maintenance team formed by Jakub and a maintenance team formed by Matthias
and Barry.  I suppose they're distinct in the sense that the tech-ctte
could decide that Matthias should not have a position of authority over
the package at all, but that doesn't seem particularly sensible to me in
that it's rather difficult for us to make it stick going forward while
still appointing someone who doesn't think that Matthias should be
replaced.

(Also, why is Jakub listed as a separate option but not Barry?)

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 02:46:58PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:
> > If the Technical Committee welcome that, I'll be happy to take the
> > burden of verifying (publicly, and on -python) who would be willing, at
> > present, to be part of an alternative Python maintenance team.
> 
> Personally, I would be much more comfortable with that than any of the
> "delegate the decision to other people" options.  I think that would also
> make the vote somewhat more concrete so that the TC can consider a
> fully-formed alternative.
> 
> I don't speak for the TC, but I personally would appreciate that.

Not having heard other options, I've proceed with the verification
mentioned above. Everything has happened publicly and is hence available
for your review starting from [1].  My own conclusions on the potential
teams, based on that thread have been posted on list [2] and also
attached to this mail for your convenience.

According to the thread, the amount of volunteers willing to help has
changed but not diminished, although it seems to be more scattered now.

To conclude, let me remind that the purpose of this exercise was only to
verify the availability of the team that volunteered 2 years ago, in
order to give more data to the tech-ctte for deciding what team (if any)
should go in the vote ballots.

I hope this could help and that the tech-ctte have now all the input
needed to quickly come to a conclusion on this issue, one way or
another.

Good luck!

[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2012/04/msg8.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2012/04/msg00101.html
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ..   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ..   . . o
Debian Project Leader...   @zack on identi.ca   ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
--- Begin Message ---
On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:36:58AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Allow me be blunt then: do we have volunteers to maintain the pythonX.Y
> packages? Can those volunteers manifest themselves on this list?

> I understand there might be incompatibilities that make impossible for
> potential volunteers to work with other such volunteers. Nonetheless, I
> suggest first to have a public volunteering round, even if you have
> conditions attached to your availability. One concern at a time :)

3 weeks into this, it seems we have reached a peek in the amount of
people who volunteer to maintain pythonX.Y. I've go not more candidacy
in private mail than what you saw on list, which is a good sign.

Considering the potential incompatibilities, it seems that the possible
maintenance "teams" boil down to:

- a maintenance team formed by Sandro
- a maintenance team formed by Matthias and Barry
- a maintenance team formed by Jakub

Then there is the availability to help by Luca to do "grunt work", with
no strong requirement of doing so as a declared co-maintainer.

It should also be noted that Jakub, in spite of his availability, has
made clear that he does not support removing the current maintainer by
the means of a tech-ctte vote.  Barry clarified in mail to me (asking me
to mention it here) that he does not support removing the current
maintainer either, which is why I've listed Barry in co-maintenance with
Matthias, but not with Sandro.

Having not heard from Matthias either, I had to pick some "defaults" for
his "conflicts", which I'll be happy to refine as soon as he comments on
this (but quite frankly, I don't see that coming). I've assumed he would
be fine working with Barry, and that he would not be fine working with
Sandro. The rationale is a simple principle: I have witnessed in the
past conflicts between Matthias and Sandro, but no conflicts between
Matthias and Barry. It seems fair to assume that the status quo
(positive or negative) continues, until the contrary is proven.

If there are no further comments or candidacies, I'll proceed forwarding
the above possibilities to the tech-ctte, Cc:-ing this list, before the
end of the week.

I recall that the purpose of this exercise was simply to do a reality
check of the team who 2 years ago volunteered in the tech-ctte buglog.
No endorsement of any of the tech-ctte option is implied in the results
of the exercise.

Cheers.
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences   ..   http://upsilon.cc/zack   ..   . . o
Debian Project Leader...   @zack on identi.ca   ...o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
--- End Message ---


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Russ Allbery]

Sandro Tosi  writes:
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:57, Russ Allbery  wrote:

>> I would like this to not slip back into limbo again, since it's clear
>> that the problem is neither going to go away nor is provoking any
>> substantively new discussion.  I think we should take some time to
>> craft a reasonable ballot, but I'd like us to start voting on this
>> within a week or two and reach some sort of conclusion.

> thanks for trying to push this to an end drafting a vote (which is good)
> but a question come to my mind: do you think it's correct to try to
> conclude this process without any public statement from Matthias on the
> matter? I'm thinking about a long reply, but even a quick note.

I would love to have a public statement from Matthias on the subject.  I
think it would be very helpful.  However, as stated in the constitution,
Debian cannot require anyone to do work.  That includes making public
statements where they don't want to.  Matthias has no obligation to do
anything that he doesn't want to; Debian is a volunteer project.  (Of
course, when determining a question like this where communication is a big
part of the matter in question, it is relevant to the decision whether or
not people have or can make the time and effort -- which in contentious
issues I realize can be substantial -- to reply to issues related to the
maintenance of the Python packages.)

> I mean, part of the problems we've tried to highlight are the lack of
> public communications, and that has manifested itself with no
> contributions to this bug. Has the CTTE tried to indicate Matthias to
> reply? (maybe coming from a high rank ctte might be more well received.)
> Is it something you think it's important?

I believe that's been attempted several times over the long history of
this bug.  I certainly intend to invite him to reply once we have an idea
of what the ballot might be, since I would like to know what he thinks
before voting.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Sandro Tosi]

Hello Russ,

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 05:57, Russ Allbery  wrote:
> I would like this to not slip back into limbo again, since it's clear that
> the problem is neither going to go away nor is provoking any substantively
> new discussion.  I think we should take some time to craft a reasonable
> ballot, but I'd like us to start voting on this within a week or two and
> reach some sort of conclusion.

thanks for trying to push this to an end drafting a vote (which is
good) but a question come to my mind: do you think it's correct to try
to conclude this process without any public statement from Matthias on
the matter? I'm thinking about a long reply, but even a quick note.

I mean, part of the problems we've tried to highlight are the lack of
public communications, and that has manifested itself with no
contributions to this bug. Has the CTTE tried to indicate Matthias to
reply? (maybe coming from a high rank ctte might be more well
received.) Is it something you think it's important?

Cheers,
-- 
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Russ Allbery]

Stefano Zacchiroli  writes:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 09:57:02PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> D. The Technical Committee exercises our power under 6.1.2 of the
>>Constitution to designate:
>> 
>> - Luca Falavigna 
>> - Josselin Mouette 
>> - Sandro Tosi 
>> - Bernd Zeimetz 
>> 
>>as the new maintenace team for the Python interpretor packages.  (This
>>of course assumes that all of those people still want to be part of the
>>maintenance team; we should ensure we have an accurate list before we
>>vote.)

> If the Technical Committee welcome that, I'll be happy to take the
> burden of verifying (publicly, and on -python) who would be willing, at
> present, to be part of an alternative Python maintenance team.

Personally, I would be much more comfortable with that than any of the
"delegate the decision to other people" options.  I think that would also
make the vote somewhat more concrete so that the TC can consider a
fully-formed alternative.

I don't speak for the TC, but I personally would appreciate that.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Russ Allbery]

Andreas Barth  writes:

> You think it's worse than just orphan the package now and/or ask the DPL
> to choose a new maintainer? (I would say it's the least agressive one of
> the variants that do require a change of the maintainer, as Matthias has
> some say of the new maintainer team as long as it's a team but YMMV. Of
> course, it's not nice. But no of the options is nice.)

I suppose it depends on how you look at it, but if I were being forcibly
overridden in opinions about Python maintenance, I'd want the people
overriding me to take responsibility for the whole thing, rather than
continuing to make it my responsibility.  But either way that's an option,
so I don't feel very strongly about it.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Andreas Barth]

* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120319 22:27]:
> Andreas Barth  writes:
> 
> > How about:
> 
> > BC. The Technical Committee have been petitioned to decide on the
> > maintainership of the python packes.  We agree with the substance of
> > the complaint, but do not feel able to directly select the replacement
> > maintainers.  Therefore:
> >  
> > We require the current python package manager to hand over the
> > package to a team of at least three maintainers (where he may be
> > one of the maintainers but without veto power) who are actually
> > active within the debian python community. This needs to be done
> > latest 6 weeks after the vote has ended. Failing that, the
> > Tech Ctte exercises our power under 6.1.2 of the Constitution to
> > remove the current maintainer of the Python interpretor packages.
> > It delegates the task of choosing a new maintenance team for the
> > Python packages to the DPL.
> 
> I don't have any objections to that in terms of process or the outcomes
> I'd expect, although that's rather a hard thing to ask someone to do.

You think it's worse than just orphan the package now and/or ask the
DPL to choose a new maintainer? (I would say it's the least agressive
one of the variants that do require a change of the maintainer, as
Matthias has some say of the new maintainer team as long as it's a
team but YMMV. Of course, it's not nice. But no of the options is
nice.)


Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Russ Allbery]

Andreas Barth  writes:

> How about:

> BC. The Technical Committee have been petitioned to decide on the
> maintainership of the python packes.  We agree with the substance of
> the complaint, but do not feel able to directly select the replacement
> maintainers.  Therefore:
>  
> We require the current python package manager to hand over the
> package to a team of at least three maintainers (where he may be
> one of the maintainers but without veto power) who are actually
> active within the debian python community. This needs to be done
> latest 6 weeks after the vote has ended. Failing that, the
> Tech Ctte exercises our power under 6.1.2 of the Constitution to
> remove the current maintainer of the Python interpretor packages.
> It delegates the task of choosing a new maintenance team for the
> Python packages to the DPL.

I don't have any objections to that in terms of process or the outcomes
I'd expect, although that's rather a hard thing to ask someone to do.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Andreas Barth]

* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [120319 06:00]:
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=573745#335
> 
> B. The Technical Committee have been petitioned to decide on the
>maintainership of the python packes.  We agree with the substance of
>the complaint, but do not feel able to directly select the replacement
>maintainers.  Therefore:
> 
>We declare that the python packages (full list below) are now orphaned,
>exercising our power in s2 of the Constitution.
> 
>Please would those interested in taking over Python maintenance form an
>appropriate team and take over the package.  If competing teams should
>come forward, the package should be taken over by the largest.

> C. The Technical Committee exercises our power under 6.1.2 of the
>Constitution to remove the current maintainer of the Python interpretor
>packages.  It delegates the task of choosing a new maintenance team for
>the Python packages to the DPL.

I don't think orphaning makes sense, unless we know for sure that a
better (in whatever terms) group of people picks the packages up. And
I somehow doubt it makes sense.


How about:

BC. The Technical Committee have been petitioned to decide on the
maintainership of the python packes.  We agree with the substance of
the complaint, but do not feel able to directly select the replacement
maintainers.  Therefore:
 
We require the current python package manager to hand over the
package to a team of at least three maintainers (where he may be
one of the maintainers but without veto power) who are actually
active within the debian python community. This needs to be done
latest 6 weeks after the vote has ended. Failing that, the
Tech Ctte exercises our power under 6.1.2 of the Constitution to
remove the current maintainer of the Python interpretor packages.
It delegates the task of choosing a new maintenance team for the
Python packages to the DPL.




Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Russ Allbery]

Okay, this isn't going to make anyone happy, but here goes.

I don't think anything new is happening with this bug, and while I've
argued in the past that keeping things like this open for a while to see
what happens can be useful, I think we've long passed the point of that
here.  We need to not leave this in limbo and just vote on it; I don't
think we're going to get substantially more information than we have
already, and I don't think the situation is changing appreciably over the
situation last March.

The question is, what's the ballot?  Obviously, one ballot option, based
on the previous discussion here, is something like:

A. While several issues with public communication, coordination, and
   collaboration in Python maintenance are very concerning, the Technical
   Committee is unconvinced that the proposed alternatives will be better
   for the project as a whole.  The Technical Committee therefore declines
   to replace the maintainer of the Python interpreter packages, but
   strongly encourages the current Python maintainer to accept
   comaintainers for the package.

I think a second ballot option is Ian's proposal at:

http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=573745#335

B. The Technical Committee have been petitioned to decide on the
   maintainership of the python packes.  We agree with the substance of
   the complaint, but do not feel able to directly select the replacement
   maintainers.  Therefore:

   We declare that the python packages (full list below) are now orphaned,
   exercising our power in s2 of the Constitution.

   Please would those interested in taking over Python maintenance form an
   appropriate team and take over the package.  If competing teams should
   come forward, the package should be taken over by the largest.

assuming Ian still thinks this is a good idea given Steve's response.
Steve's response proposes a third option, namely:

C. The Technical Committee exercises our power under 6.1.2 of the
   Constitution to remove the current maintainer of the Python interpretor
   packages.  It delegates the task of choosing a new maintenance team for
   the Python packages to the DPL.

I have to admit that I don't like this option at all, and Steve didn't
seem to care for it either.  Unless someone wants to actually advocate for
it, I am inclined to not include it on the ballot.

There's also the option in the original message to the Technical
Committee, which I think should probably be on the ballot in some form:

D. The Technical Committee exercises our power under 6.1.2 of the
   Constitution to designate:

- Luca Falavigna 
- Josselin Mouette 
- Sandro Tosi 
- Bernd Zeimetz 

   as the new maintenace team for the Python interpretor packages.  (This
   of course assumes that all of those people still want to be part of the
   maintenance team; we should ensure we have an accurate list before we
   vote.)

and then

E. Further discussion.

Reactions from the rest of the TC to that ballot and the other issues
listed above?

I would like this to not slip back into limbo again, since it's clear that
the problem is neither going to go away nor is provoking any substantively
new discussion.  I think we should take some time to craft a reasonable
ballot, but I'd like us to start voting on this within a week or two and
reach some sort of conclusion.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Sandro Tosi]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 14:56, Sandro Tosi  wrote:
> ping

2-years-old ping

--
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Sandro Tosi]

ping

-- 
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Andreas Barth]

* Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) [100706 08:02]:
> This is a community, cooperative project.  That means that getting along
> with fellow developers *is actual work*, and is as important in some cases
> as the technical work expressed in the packages that we upload.

It's even worse: Within the release team, I spend over 90% of my time
on social issues, not technical. Which is ok, but also required.


Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Andreas Barth]

* Sandro Tosi (mo...@debian.org) [100706 00:24]:
> Ok, probably I didn't express myself clearly enough. you are talking
> about the future, when python will have co-maintainers
> (python*-default already has them), am I correct? I was referring
> instead to the current situation where python*-default has
> co-maintainers while python interpreter packages still has not. It
> seems to me that Matthias is still the key to make the architecture
> works, since he controls interpreters and co-control (horrible
> expression) the *-default, so without his ack (and so public
> discussion when needed) we are stuck.

Just checking: if pythonX.Y would have appropriate co-maintainers, you
then would be happy? Or is there more to be done as of today?



Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Andreas Barth]

* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [100705 19:13]:
> Andreas Barth writes ("Re: Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter 
> packages maintainership"):
> > * Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [100705 15:02]:
> > > I wrote:
> > > > I don't think we are considering adding an additional layer of
> > > > management.  Currently the person in charge is Matthias; he is the
> > > > maintainer of python2.6 et al.[1]
> > 
> > Plus Scott Kitterman and Piotr O?arowski.
> 
> I was looking at the Maintainer field of the packages in unstable.
> I'd be happy to add Scott and Piotr to my list.

Both of them are in the Uploaders-field of python-default.

> I think ultimately what we need to do is empower the people currently
> doing most of the work.

"Doing most of the work" is not the same as "being the loudest ones in
complaining".


I had quite much to do with a few python-people for the recent
transition. Jakub (jwilk) did a really fantastic job there (I was next
to handing him binNMU permissions), but also Piotr and Scott did quite
much (and are always nice and helpful). The few occasions Matthias
needed to do someting it worked also quite well, at least for me. (And
once the release team had finally found an slot for python-defaults
pointing to 2.6 in unstable Matthias did an upload quite fast - as it
should be.)



Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Andreas Barth]

* Ian Jackson (ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk) [100705 15:02]:
> I wrote:
> > I don't think we are considering adding an additional layer of
> > management.  Currently the person in charge is Matthias; he is the
> > maintainer of python2.6 et al.[1]

Plus Scott Kitterman and Piotr Ożarowski.


> > We would hand the maintainership of these packages to the new team.
> 
> We still don't have a new team.  The only coherent team that has been
> suggested has been the four people who emailed the TC to start with.
> As they wrote:
>Luca Falavigna
>Josselin Mouette
>Sandro Tosi
>Bernd Zeimetz
>anyone else willing to help, including of course the current
>maintainer, provided the above points are met.

I don't think that's a coherent team, at least none I would like to be
the maintainer of the python packages. I need to admit that I don't
think that either Josselin nor Bernd are capable to do that proper. I
have no strong opinion on the others yet, which also means I don't
think they should make them the maintainers. (I think if we do a
change we should be convinced it gets better.)


Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Ian Jackson]

Sandro Tosi writes ("Re: Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter 
packages  maintainership"):
> Also, an additional level of "management" has to be well received from
> who has to be managed: are we really sure Matthias will follow even
> controversial decisions (so in opposition to some of his ideas) the
> core team will take?

I don't think we are considering adding an additional layer of
management.  Currently the person in charge is Matthias; he is the
maintainer of python2.6 et al.[1]

We would hand the maintainership of these packages to the new team.

Ian.

[1] What is the exact list of packages in question ?  I make it as
follows.  Core Python packages:

  python2.5
  python2.6
  python3.1
  distribute
  python-central
  python-defaults
  python-old-doctools
  python3-defaults

Python extensions and libraries:
  pycxx
  pygresql
  pyparallel
  pyserial
  pysvn
  python-bsddb3
  python-gnuplot
  python-imaging
  python-reportlab
  python-scientific
  python-stats
  python-stdlib-extensions
  python-sigmask
  twisted
  twisted-*
  python3-stdlib-extensions



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Sandro Tosi]

Hello,
I'm going to reply to some of the more recent emails of this thread:
please consider this as a personal reply, not meant to represent the
feelings/ideas of other original signers of this appeal.

On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 23:28, Andreas Barth  wrote:
> * Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) [100512 17:27]:
>> Le mardi 11 mai 2010 à 23:08 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
>> > However, there have been some talks within the tech ctte and with different
>> > people inside the Debian python community. That needed time, and we prefer
>> > to get to a resolution a bit later than to one that doesn't work. I doubt
>> > we can get to a final decision as of now.
>>
>> First of all I’d like to express my sadness to see these discussions,
>> again, having being conducted privately. We have now several years
>> behind us that show this is a bad idea, and the CTTE, asked to resolve
>> this matter, chose to adopt the same technique.
>
> So you think the only acceptable option is to take away the
> maintainership from Matthias? And even if we would do that, how can we
> be sure that this resolves all the issues we have?

Let's turn this way: we already know what it's like with him
maintaining python, and I'm quite sure it won't be worst, so at least
we have the occasion to see how a really community maintained (in the
sense of people coming from the python community) would work, and I
bet it will work well.

>> > I don't want to loose Matthias contributions to python
>> > within Debian and the python community.
>>
>> This is completely irrelevant, unless Matthias threatened to stop
>> contributing unless he can keep setting the rules. But I know the CTTE
>> wouldn’t take such “don’t touch my garden” blackmail into account, of
>> course.
>
> I would expect that deciding to remove him from being maintainer would
> demotivate him - at least that would be a natural thing to happen.

I can understand that, but are we only talking about python packages
or all the other packages Matthias maintains?

I think Matthias has concentrated in his hands a lot of powers, by
maintaining key packages (bash, binutils, gcc, java, python, and
several others), thus if the fear of removing him from python
maintainership is related to the fear of some of our most important
packages will be under-maintained (even if they *already* need a lot
more love than now) or even worst, sabotaged, I think we have a much
bigger problem than simply deciding who's to maintain python.

If we are threaten by the feelings of a single person for our core
packages, then I consider we're making a mistake and Debian is loosing
the control over itself, because of too much power in one pair of
hands, and we should fix this really soon.

I just hope to be over-pessimistic, but I also want to express one of
my fears about the "not remove Matthias from python maintainers"
proposal.

On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 11:15, Andreas Barth  wrote:
> * Josselin Mouette (j...@debian.org) [100513 03:09]:
>> Le mercredi 12 mai 2010 à 23:28 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
>> > > > I don't want to loose Matthias contributions to python
>> > > > within Debian and the python community.
>> > >
>> > > This is completely irrelevant, unless Matthias threatened to stop
>> > > contributing unless he can keep setting the rules. But I know the CTTE
>> > > wouldn’t take such “don’t touch my garden” blackmail into account, of
>> > > course.
>> >
>> > I would expect that deciding to remove him from being maintainer would
>> > demotivate him - at least that would be a natural thing to happen.
>>
>> This line of reasoning is fallacious. I could reverse it and talk about
>> people who are demotivated because they feel the current maintainer is
>> incompetent. How could this help guiding the decision?
>
> Don't you see that we want to end that?

absolutely, thanks for the work you all do "behind the scene", and I
believe we are working towards this goal. I still think, tho, that in
strong situations, strong decisions have to be taken, else the
solution we reach will only work for some time, and then we'll fall
back to where we are now.

>> > > It means giving a veto power to Matthias about who can or cannot
>> > > contribute, while not giving this power to others.
>> >
>> > Eh, where does that proposal give Matthias veto power?
>>
>> If Matthias can refuse someone to be part of the core team because he
>> doesn’t trust that person, that’s a veto power.
>
> For the initial setup, I would like to have people in the core team
> that are ok by both Matthias and the people who brought this to the
> tech ctte (e.g. you). If that doesn't work out, we'll of course decide
> who is in the core team. I think that's reasonable.

Sadly, I think that the intersection of the two sets of "people
Matthias is ok with" and "people ok with the signer of this appeal" is
quite empty :) That's because I see Matthias as a single player, and
"forcing" him to work in a team will end up in:

1. him doing nothing
2. him keeps doing as 

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Arnaud Fontaine]

Hi,

As shown  clearly in the  past years, Python  cannot be maintained  by a
single developer, so  I do think it should be maintain  within a team to
allow  fixes  and   new  versions  of  upstream  Python   to  be  pushed
quickly. Therefore, I strongly second Sandro proposition.

Regards,
Arnaud Fontaine


pgpzQVBF9Mulk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Andreas Barth]

* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [100318 00:00]:
> It bothers me that what you've brought to the TC is a rant about your
> frustrations culminating in a request to remove someone else from their
> role, rather than a crisper articulation of what's wrong and a plan that
> explains how we should move forward.  In my reading and discussion with
> others, there are hints about different agreements at different times
> between different people about how to handle various transitions, but as
> someone not party to the various discussions over time, I wish I could
> find a single, well articulated policy for Python in Debian.  There are
> more people I want to talk to, and perhaps one or more of them will make
> everything clear to me... but I do not want to delay things further.

I want to send my current thoughts to this list - this is just "work
in progress". Speaking with people takes time, but is necessary for a
good solution.


This conflict has its root way in the past, and has been escalating
for quite some time till it reached the tech ctte. So I want to find
not only an solution for the current request, but I want to find a way
how we can avoid to see yet another instance starting in a few months,
starting to make more and more people unhappy, and then accumulating
to the tech ctte again in 2-3 years.


My goal is to make sure the debian python community is fun again for
the people involved, less frustrating, and can deal with the usual
disagreements (that of course exist when people do stuff together)
without external help or escalations.

Also this means that we will probably need to review how it works in
another 6 months, and reserve the right to change things as necessary
then.


My other goal obviously is to get the python 2.6 transition done in a
way that doesn't block the release, and do it in time for the release. :)


So, together this seems to indicate (order might be wrong, sorry, this
is just a braindump):

1. Establish co-maintainers for python (including pythonX.Y) that both
the community and the current maintainers are ok-ish with.

2. Get a final common (or at least accepted) technical decision how to
resolve the lingering technical issues that Bdale spoke about. This
involves sorting out with upstream. This also involves decisions which
parts needs to be done prior to squeeze, and which not - and then
picking up the stuff "after squeeze" really after squeeze is done).

3. Establish a conflict-resolution mechanismn inside of the debian
python community that is accepted by all involved parties, where
decisions are not questioned on afterwards again, where people are
actively working with (or at least not blocking or working against
decisions), and which makes sure we go in the same directions as
upstream.  (This is probably a pre-condition to get 2. done.) (Of
course, we also need to set a few things about "what can and what
can't this mechanismn resolve".)

4. We need to get a list of current open technical conflicts, and then
probably add some dates when we want to have what resolved (of course
dates can be changed, but we need to have some criteria to see "oh
this works" or "that doesn't work" - could also be something like
"from the 5 issues we want to have at least 3 sorted out till $time
after release of squeeze").


So far for now. Now I need to have more talks with more people.



Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Luca Falavigna]

Hello,
we apologize for the delay in our reply.

On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 23:50, Bdale Garbee  wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:24:51 +0100, Sandro Tosi 
> wrote:
>> Package: tech-ctte
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Hello Technical Committee,
>> we'd like you to decide about how the Python interpreter packages
>> should be maintained in Debian.
>
> I've spent several hours since my last message communicating with the
> current Python maintainer, reading various mailing list threads and
> bug logs, and generally trying to understand the situation as best I
> can.

Thanks a lot for your investment on this matter. It can be quite
time-consuming since, as you noted, things can get pretty emotional.

It is sad, though, that this discussion happened in private. We can
understand the general reason, but we think having minutes of what was
discussed would be interesting to have reported here. Part of the
problem is that Matthias is not communicating anymore on public
channels, and uses other people as a proxy. To start on solid bases,
it would be good if we didn't repeat the same errors from the past. A
large part of the perceived issues are directly related to lack of
communication, and one of the reasons for our request is Debian cannot
live in a situation where the maintainer of a core package doesn't even
talk to people who directly depend on his work.

Of course, we respect the privacy of those conversations, so we
also understand if you're going to decide to keep them
private. In any case, if some points arose from those dialogues
that you may want us to give examples (or counter-examples), we'd
be more than happy to provide them to you.

> It bothers me that what you've brought to the TC is a rant about your
> frustrations culminating in a request to remove someone else from
> their role, rather than a crisper articulation of what's wrong and a
> plan that explains how we should move forward.  

We are sorry if it sounded that way, because this is not the message we
wanted to convey. We tried to list the current issues from a technical
point of view, and if you want us to elaborate on a specific point,
we’ll be happy to provide more input. Overall, our request indeed lacks
a complete plan of what we want to implement; because it is not about
what should be implemented, but about how it should be discussed,
elaborated and coordinated. That said, we understand that you want us
to explain what we would propose and implement if we were maintainers
for Python, so we will try to elaborate on that. It is not that easy
because we have no clear idea of what the current plans of the Python
maintainer are.

As for removing the current maintainer from his position, it is only one
of the possible solutions. We do think that such a core package cannot
be effectively maintained by a single person, also given the other
points we made in the original email, and that a team should be formed
around it. If the current maintainer would like to be part of it, he's
very welcome, but at least he should be willing to collaborate; his
past actions make us dubious about this, but we are open-minded and
hoping for a positive resolution.

We were told (again, in private) than one of the proposed members for
the team (namely Joss) is a showstopper for Matthias to be part of the
said team. We don’t find it a reassuring perspective that Matthias is
putting his personal feelings before the best interest for Python in
Debian. It was hard for Joss to propose to work together with him given
their history, and we’d find it better if everyone involved could make
similar efforts. However, if it is required for things to go forward,
Joss agreed to step back from the team as a last-resort solution.

> In my reading and discussion with
> others, there are hints about different agreements at different times
> between different people about how to handle various transitions, but
> as someone not party to the various discussions over time, I wish I
> could find a single, well articulated policy for Python in Debian.
> There are more people I want to talk to, and perhaps one or more of
> them will make everything clear to me... but I do not want to delay
> things further.

For a long period of time, the only document that was approaching a
Python policy was the complete rewrite initiated by Manoj. The Python
policy itself remained incorrect until the upload of python-defaults
2.5.4-4, which brought it mostly on par with the current practice.

Let us state it out loud: this was a huge achievement, and we're
happy something has moved in the right direction; but please also note
that the updated process was not lead by the current Python maintainer,
but from (at that time) and external person, that only after his work
gained the status of co-maintainer of python-defaults.

However there are some points of strong disagreement that remain even
in that current policy (not talking about the future), and because of
that, maintainers of Python packages don’t all work 

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Andreas Barth]

* Piotr Ożarowski (pi...@debian.org) [100318 21:09]:
> [Andreas Barth 2010-03-18]
> > I agree. I tried to get one such meeting done some time ago (see
> > below)
> 
> Here's my reply from that thread (Matthias or DPL never
> responsed, or at least I wasn't in the loop)

The DPL was only in the loop "for information". He already agreed to a
meeting if it's useful, or basically anything we as group considered
useful. So I didn't expact any answer either, unless we would have ask
specifically for details of travel sponsorship for a meeting or so.


Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Piotr Ożarowski]

[Andreas Barth 2010-03-18]
> I agree. I tried to get one such meeting done some time ago (see
> below)

Here's my reply from that thread (Matthias or DPL never
responsed, or at least I wasn't in the loop)


[Piotr Ożarowski, 2009-09-27]
> Adding Raphael Hertzog to Cc as he knows the beginning of py{central,support}
> saga much better that I do and IMO always tries to find a consensus
> instead of arguing till death :-)
> 
> > as part of the recent release mails, we got some - well, "complaints" is
> > the wrong word, but definitly in that direction - mails about python2.6 (or
> > rather its inexistence in unstable).
> 
> Debian's Python situation is not perfect indeed. I don't know if it was
> better in the past - when I joined Debian few years ago it was already
> one big minefield[1] which doesn't help maintaining Python packages /
> recruiting new developers.
> 
> [1] outdated Debian Python Policy (no consensus about what it should
> contain), unwritten rules, 3 different (mostly undocumented) helper
> tools, python maintainer not really active (yes, even then, see
> reasons for founding DPMT), cdbs not supporting these new tools at
> all (dh didn't exist at that time), maintainers forced to do lots of
> work in debian/rules in order to satisfy not existing policy, ...
> 
> Let me shortly describe the situation from my perspective (i.e. from a
> person who don't know much about what happened in Mexico).
> 
> I started with dh_pysupport (which was the only tool available in
> unstable, except dh_python) but switched most of my packages (not all)
> to dh_pycentral really soon after that as I thought it was better
> designed - it supported Python extensions and didn't provide additional
> problems with __file__ and namespace issues (i.e. it stored .pyc files
> where everybody expected them to be). After a while, dh_pysupport
> started to be more and more mature (Python extensions support, bugs
> fixed really fast, additional features like Egg renaming, namespace
> (re)generation[2], etc.) and pycentral didn't change much and when it
> did change, it broke lots of packages by some internal changes never
> announced to anybody.
> 
> [2] IIRC, this was the only change not really well announced/tested and
> with wrong (see #459468) defaults in pysupport
> 
> So I took advantage of the fact that nobody really sponsored Python
> packages[3] and that many DDs (who were my sponsorees in the past or
> whom I helped with some Python related problems) trusted me and decided
> to get rid of one of the tools: python-central. And it worked fine, lots
> of packages were converted in the last few months.
> 
> [3] see [1] for possible reasons
> 
> Then, after I talked with Matthias (on my first DebConf) and realized
> that he will not upload python2.6 until we'll fix the helpers issue once
> and for all - I tried to pick up one of his ideas - symlinks (it's
> almost perfect solution - the only real problem is the fact that
> arch:all packages needs to be rebuilt once list of supported Python
> version changes), try to adjust it a little bit (f.e. remove his pet -
> "current" keyword), and if it will be accepted - update official Debian
> Python Policy...
> 
> That didn't work that well. Surprisingly many developers didn't like the
> idea and didn't even want to discuss it[4] and Joss is obviously not
> interested in changing status quo as status quo means removing
> python-central at some point (so far only Scott didn't want to convert
> his packages to python-support, it was very easy to convince other
> maintainers - the longest conversation I had was the one with Martin
> Krafft - and he just wanted to know why I want to convert his packages,
> didn't object much about dropping pycentral).
> 
> [4] I thought we could find a workaround for arch:all binNMUs issue, maybe
> some kind of semi-automatic rebuilds that do not suffer from binNMUs
> problems...
> 
> 
> Here's what we plan to do in the near future and what can eventually be
> discussed in such meeting (I'm not really sure that such meeting will
> change much if both Joss and Matthias will not tell us they're willing
> to hear others arguments and make a compromise).
> 
> We are fixing current tools and packages to support changes introduced
> in python2.6 which is currently in experimental:
> * 
> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-pyt...@lists.debian.org;tag=python2.6
> * cdbs will go to unstable today (I uploaded NMU to DELAYED/7 a week ago)
> * I will attach a fix to python-central today or tomorrow
> 
> and then we will add 2.6 to supported versions in NMUs (I will upload
> it, I'm so sick of the current situation that I will rather let Matthias
> remove my key from Debian keyring than release Squeeze without 2.6 or
> force us to do the transition 1 month before the release, like in
> Ubuntu). 
> 
> If my NMU will be rejected, I plan to hijack python and try to maintain
> it in a team of few DDs (don't wor

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Andreas Barth]

* Bdale Garbee (bd...@gag.com) [100318 00:00]:
> I'm adding the DPL to this reply because it seems possible that the only
> way to achieve this objective might be an in-person Debian Python Summit
> meeting, moderated by members of the TC, where we can work through all
> the issues and come to consensus.  Perhaps we can resolve our problems
> by email and/or IRC, but the mere existence of this petition to the TC
> and what it implies about communication disconnects makes me doubt that. 

I agree. I tried to get one such meeting done some time ago (see
below). I can understand if people are so frustrated now that they
escalate to the tech ctte. However, at least at this time I don't
think I'll vote for a new maintainer (team) if we didn't at least try
to resolve the basic issues before.


Andi


From: Andreas Barth
To: doko, joss, zack, bzed, piotr, dktrkranz, scottk
Cc: leader, release team
Subject: status of python / face2face-meeting?
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 13:32:47 +0200
Message-ID: <20090927113247.gh9...@mails.so.argh.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)

[ mail adresses removed -- Andi, 18.3.2010 ]
[ second sidenote - the recipient list of the mail is not necessarily
complete - please feel free to suggest additional recipients, I'm happy to
include more people ]


Hi,


as part of the recent release 
mails, we got some - well, "complaints" is
the wrong word, but definitly in that direction - mails about python2.6 (or
rather its inexistence in unstable). Also there doesn't seem to be a
common mindset how to place files etc etc, see e.g.
http://bugs.debian.org/474630 (this is an example, not a "there needs to be
some action now").

As you might know, I'm not a member of the Debian Python Community, but I'm
a member of the Release Community, and I'm a frequent python user/code writer
(actually the language of my choice for many tasks). For this reason, it
might be that I didn't pick up all the necessary/recommended people for
this mail - sorry if I have, I don't want to step up on anybodys toes.

>From my discussions on IRC, I have the impression that all involved people
are unhappy with the current situation, that there are still some issues
lingering around for quite some time, and this combination makes it
impossible to resolve the (real) issues we have.

On the other hand, it seems to me that overall python packaging has
progressed in Debian quite much since I last looked at it, and I think we
should try to build up on our experiences since 2006.


For this reason, I'm proposing to meet us all for a weekend in real, and
try to get the root issues resolved then and there. This of course means
getting an agenda in time before the meeting. This also means that we
definitly need to meet us on Friday evening latest so that we have really
the full Saturday to understand the reasons people have for their wishes
and needs. Also, we need to have at least half of Sunday available, so that
we can re-consider our ideas over night, and don't need to make decisions
in a rush. In case we are going to do that, I'd look if I can get some
Debian-friendly "upstream" person who is not involved yet for a second
opinion.

If I should follow on that, please tell me. I already spoke with Steve, we
can use Debian ressources (i.e. money) for that. (If you think this
wouldn't help please say as well - that'd save us all the effort of the
meeting.)


Cheers,
Andi



-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Bdale Garbee]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:24:51 +0100, Sandro Tosi  wrote:
> Package: tech-ctte
> Severity: normal
> 
> Hello Technical Committee,
> we'd like you to decide about how the Python interpreter packages
> should be maintained in Debian.

I've spent several hours since my last message communicating with the
current Python maintainer, reading various mailing list threads and bug
logs, and generally trying to understand the situation as best I can.

It bothers me that what you've brought to the TC is a rant about your
frustrations culminating in a request to remove someone else from their
role, rather than a crisper articulation of what's wrong and a plan that
explains how we should move forward.  In my reading and discussion with
others, there are hints about different agreements at different times
between different people about how to handle various transitions, but as
someone not party to the various discussions over time, I wish I could
find a single, well articulated policy for Python in Debian.  There are
more people I want to talk to, and perhaps one or more of them will make
everything clear to me... but I do not want to delay things further.

I realize this may not be what you had in mind when you asked the TC to
"decide about how the Python interpreter packages should be maintained
in Debian", but now that you've opened Pandora's box, I believe we have
a responsibility to understand the underlying problems that apparently
have plagued Python policy for years, so that whatever decision we take
will ensure the most positive outcome for Python handling in Debian in
the future.

I'm adding the DPL to this reply because it seems possible that the only
way to achieve this objective might be an in-person Debian Python Summit
meeting, moderated by members of the TC, where we can work through all
the issues and come to consensus.  Perhaps we can resolve our problems
by email and/or IRC, but the mere existence of this petition to the TC
and what it implies about communication disconnects makes me doubt that. 

Before I'll be willing to support any Technical Committee action on this
petition, I believe we need a detailed and competent plan articulated,
that explains how we get from where we are today to a single policy for
Python in Debian, and that covers at least: 

1) our philosophy for handling multiple Python interpreter versions
2) the supported approach(es) to packaging Python modules
3) an analysis of the effort involved and who needs to do what
4) a tentative schedule of milestones to completion, including what
can and should be done before squeeze freeze
5) explicit commitment by involved parties to do the required work

> transitions to force some controversial, unrelated technical
> changes to be implemented before these transitions happen.

I think this is a key part of the problem.  The Python maintainer does
not seem to believe that these are unrelated technical issues.  And the
controversy that does exist seems now to be more fueled by a combination
of emotion and inertia than technical concerns.  We need to get past
that, and focus our attentions squarely on a good Python technical
policy and associated implementation plan.  I think everything else will
flow fairly easily if we can accomplish that.

Bdale


pgpxycmAOPu0n.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Sandro Tosi]

Hello,
thanks for the fast reply.

On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 21:02, Bdale Garbee  wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:24:51 +0100, Sandro Tosi  wrote:
>> Package: tech-ctte
>> Severity: normal
>>
>> Hello Technical Committee,
>> we'd like you to decide about how the Python interpreter packages
>> should be maintained in Debian.
>
> Thank you for bringing this to the Committee's attention.  However, I
> was a little surprised to see this filed without a CC to the current
> package maintainer.  It seems our next step should be to invite him to
> comment on the issues raised from his perspective.

Well, I didn't know how you want to conduct the request, so didn't set
any CC (neither Matthias nor co-signers), taking the more cautious
side.

Regards,
-- 
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Bdale Garbee]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:24:51 +0100, Sandro Tosi  wrote:
> Package: tech-ctte
> Severity: normal
> 
> Hello Technical Committee,
> we'd like you to decide about how the Python interpreter packages
> should be maintained in Debian.

Thank you for bringing this to the Committee's attention.  However, I
was a little surprised to see this filed without a CC to the current
package maintainer.  It seems our next step should be to invite him to
comment on the issues raised from his perspective. 

Matthias?

Bdale


pgpZqy8ONrJN7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership

[Sandro Tosi]

Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal

Hello Technical Committee,
we'd like you to decide about how the Python interpreter packages
should be maintained in Debian.

The problems that we have with the current situation can mostly
be described by having a look at the way the Python 2.6
transition is being handled.

1. The Python maintainer delayed the upload of version 2.6 for 14
   months since the first upstream release, without giving a
   valid technical reason for doing so. At the same time, the
   same maintainer uploaded said Python 2.6 package quickly to
   Ubuntu, which released twice with this version as default
   before it was uploaded to unstable.

2. When finally uploaded, the python2.6 package contained an
   unplanned transition to a new location for installed
   modules. This solution was not discussed at all with other
   maintainers and led to major changes having to be rushed into
   all packaging tools, and hundreds of packages left to be
   fixed.

3. The Python maintainer didn't provide any kind of impact
   analysis of this transition, leaving all the burden on other
   maintainers (mostly the Python modules team) and didn't try to
   set up dialogue with the team, which was left to file bugs and
   do NMUs so that packages could build cleanly with these
   changes. At the same time, the same maintainer provided a very
   thorough analysis of the upcoming changes in GCC 4.5,
   collaborating with other developers to test them on a large
   scale, and thus proving he has all technical and communication
   skills to do this.

4. The Python maintainer delayed adding python2.6 to the
   supported versions, asking for python2.4 to be removed
   first. It is a good thing to remove python2.4 of course, but
   it could have been done later (or earlier), without delaying
   the former important step.

5. The Python maintainer didn't provide an environment where
   maintainers could test their packages with python2.6 as
   default in experimental, which is something that was asked
   since he announced the 2.6 transition. Again, the Python
   modules team was left the burden of setting up test
   environments, filing bugs, helping other maintainers to fix
   their packages, preparing and sponsoring NMUs, etc. When asked
   about this situation, he replied indirectly (using another
   developer as a proxy) that he is working on adding additional
   features unrelated to the transition before this happens.

6. The Python maintainer has still virtually zero communication
   with the Debian Python modules and Python applications teams,
   and there seems to have been no significant progress in this.

This situation is not new. Similar problems occurred for previous
Python transitions, starting as early as python2.2 and getting
worse over the time, despite the increasing amount of work put in
Python-related tools and of people involved in Python
packaging. A common pattern is that he often blocks important
transitions to force some controversial, unrelated technical
changes to be implemented before these transitions happen.

Given all these points, we think that the current Python
maintainer has no real interest in maintaining Python in Debian,
and no interest in working in an open fashion with other people
committed in this area. Therefore, we.d like to move the
maintainership of pythonX.Y* (interpreters and related packages)
and python-defaults (due to its specific role in the Python
environment) packages to a team of people that already showed
their involvement in Python in Debian, their ability to work in a
team, and their will to bring a constant attention to Python in
Debian; among them we propose ourselves:

 - Luca Falavigna 
 - Josselin Mouette 
 - Sandro Tosi 
 - Bernd Zeimetz 
 - anyone else willing to help, including of course the current
   maintainer, provided the above points are met.

Thanks to the amount of work the Python modules team has done for
this transition, Python 2.6 can now become the default version in
unstable (of course after the approval of the Release Team) with
minimal breakage, so that time can be the smoother one to hand
the package over to a team.

Thanks for your attention,
Luca, Josselin, Sandro, Bernd

PS: attached you can find the same text along with our signature of it.

-- System Information:
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
  APT prefers unstable
  APT policy: (500, 'unstable'), (1, 'experimental')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-3-amd64 (SMP w/4 CPU cores)
Locale: LANG=en_US.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=en_US.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/bash
Hello Technical Committee,
we'd like you to decide about how the Python interpreter packages
should be maintained in Debian.

The problems that we have with the current situation can mostly
be described by having a look at the way the Python 2.6
transition is being handled.

1. The Python maintainer delayed the upload of version 2.6 for 14
   months since the first upstream release, without givi