Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > > Philip Hands writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > > I think the maintainer saw the writing on the wall, so I count this as > > a successful intervention b

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

]] Ian Jackson > Philip Hands writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > > I still don't understand why the TC is so crushingly slow to conter > > > maintainer power in Deb

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Philip Hands writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): > Until now I've tended to be irritated by the way courts do that, but > suddenly I have more of an understanding of why they do ;-) >

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> writes: > On Monday, December 12, 2016 01:16:49 PM Ian Jackson wrote: >> Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in > source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): >>

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Monday, December 12, 2016 01:16:49 PM Ian Jackson wrote: > Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): > > If anyone can unilaterally add themselves as maintainer (to pi

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): > If anyone can unilaterally add themselves as maintainer (to pick one > proposal as an example) and make intrusive packag

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On December 11, 2016 8:50:19 PM EST, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package >ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose >maintainers)"): >> These changes will req

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): > These changes will require, at the very least, policy changes. We > have a process for that. > > Unless this thing

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On December 11, 2016 8:25:05 PM EST, Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote: >Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership >in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): >> On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 0

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Philip Hands writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > 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

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Enrico Zini writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:42:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > It's a lot simpler to keep this metadata outside source

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Rhonda D'Vine writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > Going towards an abolished maintainership > area it will make it even less likely such needed communication with the > people feeling emotionally attached to the package to happen. This is a very goo

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:42:57PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > It's a lot simpler to keep this metadata outside source package. > I endorse this product and/or service. Here's one way to quickly build a service like this: - Configure the web server to accept Debian's SSO credentials:

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Le Sun, Dec 11, 2016 at 03:00:22PM +0900, Charles Plessy a écrit : > > Dear TC, you have my support, and please feel empowered to require high > standards from the confronting parties that ask for your decisions, so that > your task is made easier, for everybody' good. > > - The TC members

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Dear Ian, TC members and everybody, the discussion about maintainership is interesting, and maybe I will post a comment later, but I think that the main problem is the speed of the TC to take its decissions. And one very important comment that was made in this thread is that the TC needs wide

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Ian Jackson writes: > 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. I wonder which column on

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Hi, * Johannes Schauer [2016-12-02 13:40:31 CET]: > Quoting Holger Levsen (2016-12-02 13:11:05) > > I'm just commenting on this single issue (and aspect of it…) here+now… > > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:20:36PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016

Re: Maintainerless Hive-Mind? (was Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Thu, 08 Dec 2016, Guillem Jover wrote: > It is not only not obviously right to me, instead it seems obvious > it carries a set of different problems with it. I feel this carries > so many assumptions of how the proposers feel about how *they* work > or might like to work and ignores how

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:39:30PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:40:31PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > motivation. being able to say "I'm the maintainer of $foo" is a *great* > > > motivation for many. Taking this away *might* cause a lot more harm that > > >

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 05:08:06PM +0100, Jérémy Bobbio wrote: > > > For each such dispute, we should pick a panel of randomly chosen DDs, > > > and have them decide (with a time limit). > > > > No randomness please. Probably all bodies in Debian are either elected > > or appointed (by

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

[Scott Kitterman, 2016-12-08] > I feel a personal sense of responsibility towards the packages where I appear > as Maintainer or in Uploaders. In my mind, adding myself there represents > both authority to make decisions and responsibilities. > > Take that away and I do believe I'll feel

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Wednesday, December 07, 2016 11:21:23 AM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:29:13PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > Can we come up with some way whereby the maintainership authority is > > always shared, somehow ? > > The net result of this would be that anyone who maintains

Maintainerless Hive-Mind? (was Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 19:20:36 +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely. > > This is the obviously right solution. It is not only not obviously right to me, instead it seems obvious it carries a set of

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Didier 'OdyX' Raboud writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > If one feels the source package isn't kept up-to-date enough, she > can "just" file an ITP for a new source package name, pointing to > hir attempts at convincing the existing mai

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > So my question here is: why would someone who has learned to work > amicably *within* the boundaries of several teams, will behave any > different *across* those boundaries, when contributing to pac

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:29:13PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Can we come up with some way whereby the maintainership authority is > always shared, somehow ? The net result of this would be that anyone who maintains packages in Debian will do so as part of a team. Likely, people maintaining more

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Le mercredi, 7 décembre 2016, 08.49:57 h CET Russell Stuart a écrit : > Why not have a formal rule that says if a package in Debian is out of > date for more than one release cycle any DD can package it under a > different name, after going through the usual ITP procedures coupled > with a bug

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Thu, 2016-12-01 at 15:46 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > 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; >  * Several times, proposed updates have been

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

* Adam Borowski [161206 10:10]: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > What I currently find inconvenient about the LowThresholdNmu page is, that > > it > > is external to the source package. So after having found a package I want to > > fix

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Lars Wirzenius writes ("Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): > For example, there's corner cases that get tricky. A package might > only be in stable, but the maintainer

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > why would it be important to change that kind of information for a package in > stable? The audience interested in this field is interested in uploads to > unstable, so is it not sufficient if the information is up-to-date there?

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > why would it be important to change that kind of information for a package in > stable? The audience interested in this field is interested in uploads to > unstable, so is it not sufficient if the information is up-to-date there?

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Hi, Quoting Lars Wirzenius (2016-12-06 16:06:30) > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:50:12PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > Actually, this is a great argument for why this information should be in a > > deb822 field in the source package itself. > > FWIW, I think this is the kind of information

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:50:12PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Actually, this is a great argument for why this information should be in a > deb822 field in the source package itself. FWIW, I think this is the kind of information that should be kept out of the source package, since changing

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Hi, Quoting Holger Levsen (2016-12-06 15:15:53) > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:08:54PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/multistrap > > I see that https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu lists you as > > [[JohannesSchauer|Johannes 'josch' Schauer]] while the

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > We should go for "weak code ownership" instead, I was thinking about what Scott wrote, and also went back and read some of the bug log he is referring to. I wonder if there is an underlying a u

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 03:08:54PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > > https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/multistrap > I see that https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu lists you as > [[JohannesSchauer|Johannes 'josch' Schauer]] while the maintainer field is > Johannes Schauer , that

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 02:55:57PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-12-06 09:36:08) > > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > What I currently find inconvenient about the LowThresholdNmu page is, > > > that it > > > is external to the

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > Having been involved in one of these things even as a maintainer of > a package that was not directly the target of the request to the TC > was extremely trying. [etc.] Thanks for sharing your experie

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Hi, Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-12-06 09:36:08) > On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > What I currently find inconvenient about the LowThresholdNmu page is, that > > it > > is external to the source package. So after having found a package I want to > > fix I

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Johannes Schauer writes ("Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"): > I think the thread has derailed here a little bit but I think that > Lars and Tollef are aware that their proposals are orthogonal to t

Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > What I currently find inconvenient about the LowThresholdNmu page is, that it > is external to the source package. So after having found a package I want to > fix I have to manually look up on that wiki page whether the maintainer

Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Hi, Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-12-05 23:04:48) > Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and > 1 more messages]"): > > A similar proposal: Have a way of declaring the package to be under > > collective maintenance (put it

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 explanatio

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 st

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 v

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 leas

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

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 [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 &g

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

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;

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

]] 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: > ]] 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

]] 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. > > > >

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

]] 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 [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 [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

Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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 ar

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 [and 1 more messages]

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]"): > Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > > The TC has never desposed an existing maintainer, and very rarely even > > overturned an individual decis

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

Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> 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.

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 diction

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

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 un

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

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

o this very discussion [0], although some TC members have already expressed opinions (mostly both ways, I feel), the TC hasn't taken a decision yet. It therefore feels quite premature to launch a "Replace the TC power to depose maintainers" discussion. By launching the discussion thr

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 hav

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

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes: > Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): >> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 03:42:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: >> > DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS >> > >> >

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Mattia Rizzolo: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > The key question for such a new process is: who will decide ? > > > > It is very tempting to model such a thing on our existing > > constitutional structures. For example, we could create a team like > > DAM,

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 03:42:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS > > > > OPTION A > > = "keep the status quo" AIUI, no. Empirically

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Sheetal Shalini writes: > Hi > > How do I unsubscribe from Debian Project mailing list? > see the instructions on https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 03:42:58PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS > > OPTION A = "keep the status quo" > OPTION B equals: > 7. We amend the Constitution section 6.1(4) to remove the words > "requires a 3:1 majority" and "this requires a 3:1 majority".

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Hi How do I unsubscribe from Debian Project mailing list? Thanks and Regards. Sheetal Shalini 3rd Year B.Tech CSE NITK Surathkal On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sat, 2016-12-03 at 10:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > Mainly, it was a way to control

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Sat, 2016-12-03 at 10:27 +, Ian Jackson wrote: > Mainly, it was a way to control who got email about the package. Why was it called Maintainer instead of something more suitable then? > I was there at the time; this may even have been my fault.  Sorry. No worries, this is all hindsight

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Hi How do I unsubscribe from the debian project mailing list? On Dec 1, 2016 9:48 PM, "Mattia Rizzolo" wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > There is a recent case where: > > * The maintainer has done nothing to the package for many

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Paul Wise writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > I'd like to reframe this discussion a little bit... > > What exactly is the Maintainer* field for? > > Initially it was a way for individuals to declare their commitment to > perform all ta

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > We could get rid of "Maintainer" in debian/control and still display > on tracker.debian.org the name of people who are uploading/committing > in a dynamic "Maintainer" section. > > Actually, this is part of my grand-plan... :-) aka >

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Fri, 02 Dec 2016, Holger Levsen wrote: > I'm not saying people like you dont exist, nor that your reasoning aint > sensible. I've just said some people take motivation from being listed > as maintainer. We could get rid of "Maintainer" in debian/control and still display on tracker.debian.org

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On 2016-12-02 13:32:40, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-12-02 12:43:52) > > Otherwise it really will be chaos, with people uploading contra-reverts of > > each others' reverts. > > Personally, I doubt that this would happen. In a world without maintainership, > I'd expect

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely. > > This is the obviously right solution. Hey, I have an idea that maybe you will support,

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:39:30PM +, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:40:31PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > > motivation. being able to say "I'm the maintainer of $foo" is a *great* > > > motivation for many. Taking this away *might* cause a lot more harm that > > >

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:32:40PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-12-02 12:43:52) > > Otherwise it really will be chaos, with people uploading contra-reverts of > > each others' reverts. > > Personally, I doubt that this would happen. In a world without maintainership,

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:40:31PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote: > > motivation. being able to say "I'm the maintainer of $foo" is a *great* > > motivation for many. Taking this away *might* cause a lot more harm that > > gain. > Why would this be taken away? motivation works in strange ways.

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Johannes Schauer writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-12-02 12:43:52) > > And it is this very rule which is the problem. If you propose to > > solve the stop-energy maintainer deathgrip problem by abolishing > > ma

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Hi, Quoting Holger Levsen (2016-12-02 13:11:05) > I'm just commenting on this single issue (and aspect of it…) here+now… > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:20:36PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > 3. Abolish maintainership

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Hi, Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-12-02 12:43:52) > Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely. > > > > This is the

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Hi, I'm just commenting on this single issue (and aspect of it…) here+now… On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:20:36PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely. > This is the obviously right solution. while I

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely. > > This is the obviously right solution. I can see why this is attractive. But as I sa

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:26:28PM +, Clint Adams wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:20:36PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > We should go for "weak code ownership" instead, which *in theory* is > > what we already have (given every DD can NMU any package), but the > > *culture* of strong

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:20:36PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > We should go for "weak code ownership" instead, which *in theory* is > what we already have (given every DD can NMU any package), but the > *culture* of strong ownership is so rooted in the project that people > are still too

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely. This is the obviously right solution. Everything else would be a temporary work-around to inefficiencies and bugs introduced by the existence of explicit maintainership. With explicit

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 06:00:42PM +, Ian Jackson wrote: > I envisioned a mediation stage, to try to reach consensus, before > deciding the conflict is irreducible and needs to be settled as such. > > Could the MIA team do this ? Would you want to ? It seems like it > would need many of the

Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Mattia Rizzolo writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"): > We have a very similar case within the MIA team (the willing contributor > contacted us instead of the TC). The only difference is probably that > the maintainer sent his NAK to me on IRC instead of

  1   2   >