Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:02:27PM +0100, Laura Arjona Reina wrote: > I have just created the page: > > https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdAdoption > > and added myself to the list. I've added myself to the list. -- I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh signature.asc

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

]] Ian Jackson > That is 6+ weeks' more stop-energy. 6+ weeks' more inaction. 6+ > weeks during which members of the TC have been prevaricating. What are you accusing the TC of lying about? -- Tollef Fog Heen UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

]] Philip Hands > Tollef Fog Heen writes: > > > ]] Ian Jackson > > > >> That is 6+ weeks' more stop-energy. 6+ weeks' more inaction. 6+ > >> weeks during which members of the TC have been prevaricating. > > > > What are you accusing the TC of lying about? > > I think that

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Tollef Fog Heen writes: > ]] Philip Hands > >> Tollef Fog Heen writes: >> >> > ]] Ian Jackson >> > >> >> That is 6+ weeks' more stop-energy. 6+ weeks' more inaction. 6+ >> >> weeks during which members of the TC have been prevaricating. >> > >> > What are you

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

]] Ian Jackson > Imagine the roles were replaced. Imagine the actual petitioners (P > and W, for the same of argument) were the current maintainers, and the > actual current maintainer (R) were a petitioner saying "please make me > the maintainer". Would the TC would spend months debating

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

]] Lars Wirzenius > I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package > ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or > something, listing maintainers who are OK if someone hijacks their > package if the maintainer isn't taking good care of it. Would

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

]] Ian Jackson > Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose > maintainers"): > > Le lundi, 5 décembre 2016, 14.41:01 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit : > > > 6+ weeks during which members of the TC have been prevaricating. > > > > I had to lookup prevaricate in a dictionary: > >

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Tollef Fog Heen writes: > ]] Ian Jackson > >> That is 6+ weeks' more stop-energy. 6+ weeks' more inaction. 6+ >> weeks during which members of the TC have been prevaricating. > > What are you accusing the TC of lying about? I think that British English has drifted into using

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > Le lundi, 5 décembre 2016, 14.41:01 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit : > > 6+ weeks during which members of the TC have been prevaricating. > > I had to lookup prevaricate in a dictionary: > > to speak falsely or

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Ian Jackson writes: > Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): >> We should go for "weak code ownership" instead, which *in theory* is >> what we already have > Well, no. What we have is a kind of sticky door when the

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Dear all El 05/12/16 a las 19:13, Lars Wirzenius escribió: > We've had the "strong package ownership" concept be a problem in > various ways. Many years ago people were afraid of making NMUs to fix > bugs, even RC bugs, and I started the > https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu page. It's got

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

We've had the "strong package ownership" concept be a problem in various ways. Many years ago people were afraid of making NMUs to fix bugs, even RC bugs, and I started the https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu page. It's got over 300 maintainers now, and NMUs are quite normal, though I suspect

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Ian Jackson writes: > Philip Hands writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): >> this NOOP, > > I'm very surprised to see you say that you think this is a no-op. > > ISTM that in the current argument, the TC has given the position of > the

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]"): > Ian Jackson writes: > > The TC has never desposed an existing maintainer, and very rarely even > > overturned an individual decision. > > There is a widespread

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Ian Jackson writes: > Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): >> I still don't understand why the TC is so crushingly slow to conter >> maintainer power in Debian. As I say in my other emails, a result of >> the TC's inaction,

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > They might want to consult a dictionary then, I. Chambers English Dictionary (1994 edition, which is what I have): prevaricate (vi) to avoid stating the truth or coming directly to the point; to quibble. [And

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > Because I generally find it's generally the wrong tool for the job. If > I can come up with a good explanation for why somebody should take a > particular course of action (which I need before I'm willing to override >

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On 2016-12-05 20:57, Philip Hands wrote: > Tollef Fog Heen writes: >> ]] Ian Jackson >>> That is 6+ weeks' more stop-energy. 6+ weeks' more inaction. 6+ >>> weeks during which members of the TC have been prevaricating. >> What are you accusing the TC of lying about? > I think

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Monday, December 05, 2016 10:02:02 PM Ian Jackson wrote: > Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > > Because I generally find it's generally the wrong tool for the job. If > > I can come up with a good explanation for why somebody should take a > >

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]"): Lars Wirzenius > > I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package > > ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or > > something, listing maintainers

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > Nonsense. There's no risk for a non-maintainer to come to the TC. A non-maintainer who comes to the TC: * Is very likely to find that already unpleasant situation, gets emotionally worse, at least temporarily; *

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Monday, December 05, 2016 11:18:41 PM Ian Jackson wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > > Nonsense. There's no risk for a non-maintainer to come to the TC. > > A non-maintainer who comes to the TC: > > * Is very likely to find that already

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

]] Ian Jackson There's no need to Cc me on replies, I'm subscribed already. > Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > > Because I generally find it's generally the wrong tool for the job. If > > I can come up with a good explanation for why somebody should

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

]] Ian Jackson > Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and > 1 more messages]"): > Lars Wirzenius > > > I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package > > > ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or > > >

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Philip Hands writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > this NOOP, I'm very surprised to see you say that you think this is a no-op. ISTM that in the current argument, the TC has given the position of the existing maintainer great weight. Imagine the roles were replaced.

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Since I didn't want to sent too many more emails, I'll make three short replies in one email... Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > We should go for "weak code ownership" instead, which *in theory* is > what we already have Well, no. What we have is a

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Le jeudi, 1 décembre 2016, 15.46:05 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit : > There is a recent case where: > * The maintainer has done nothing to the package for many years, >other than infrequent (and usually short) emails to NAK >contributions from others; > * The package is years out of date

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Le vendredi, 2 décembre 2016, 15.42:58 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit : > Hey, I have an idea that maybe you will support, which takes us much > more in that direction and may reinvigorate our existing processes: > > DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS As a general comment, I am in discomfort with GR

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Ian Jackson writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > I still don't understand why the TC is so crushingly slow to conter > maintainer power in Debian. As I say in my other emails, a result of > the TC's inaction, maintainer power in Debian is nearly unassailable. Didier, and

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Le lundi, 5 décembre 2016, 14.41:01 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit : > The bug was filed on the 19th of October. That was nearly 7 weeks > ago. Sure. I'm not saying the TC couldn't be better. > That is 6+ weeks' more stop-energy. 6+ weeks' more inaction. I agree with that. > 6+ weeks during which

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > I think you're really jumping the gun here. While the TC is not > known for acting rapidly, I (would like to) think it is becoming > better. In the "recent case" you're using as trigger to this very > discussion [0],