Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
On 11/12/19 2:38 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > please also realize not everyone shares the > same ideas as yours and you should try sometimes to respect those > people decisions too. With all due respect, the point that I'm trying to make is that this policy is only there because what I believe is a minority (which you are part of) supports it, and which everyone else doesn't like. I do respect your view, and I'm sorry if voicing my opinion is (again) going against what's been established for years, just like it did when we moved from SVN to Git. Though that's how things evolve, hopefully for the better. Also, it's ok if we don't agree... :) Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
that policy is well written down, at https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin - give it a look and see if it clarifies your doubt about team maintenance and why someone would prefer to have the ultimate responsibility for the quality of a package. you already created the openstack team (which is great!) with exactly and only the rules you like, where you're free to do what you feel is best; that's great but please also realize not everyone shares the same ideas as yours and you should try sometimes to respect those people decisions too. On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 6:14 PM Thomas Goirand wrote: > > On 11/11/19 9:17 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > > Personally, I've been judicious in putting myself as Maintainer in DPMT and > > PAPT packages. If we were to ditch the current policy, my immediate > > response would be to remove DPMT/PAPT from uploaders and maintain them > > outside the team. It's about 1/4 of my DPMT/PAPT packages. > > > > I suspect I'm not the only one. > > > > Your proposal is not cost free for the teams. > > > > Scott K > > Hi Scott, > > Exactly what difference would it make? Just that your package would > really appear as not team-maintained, which is already the current plain > reality (as the "unwritten policy" tells nobody else but you can touch > the package). So I don't see why anyone in the team would mind. > > Cheers, > > Thomas Goirand (zigo) > -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
On 11/11/19 9:17 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote: > Personally, I've been judicious in putting myself as Maintainer in DPMT and > PAPT packages. If we were to ditch the current policy, my immediate response > would be to remove DPMT/PAPT from uploaders and maintain them outside the > team. It's about 1/4 of my DPMT/PAPT packages. > > I suspect I'm not the only one. > > Your proposal is not cost free for the teams. > > Scott K Hi Scott, Exactly what difference would it make? Just that your package would really appear as not team-maintained, which is already the current plain reality (as the "unwritten policy" tells nobody else but you can touch the package). So I don't see why anyone in the team would mind. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
On November 10, 2019 10:09:57 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand wrote: >On 11/10/19 1:20 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: >> is there any public trace of these "many voices"? > >Just like when we discussed moving away from SVN to Git, we can't know >the exact number unless we have a kind of poll/vote (but we don't >actually *have* to start such poll... I'm just saying it's hard to know >otherwise). > >However, I can account for maybe 5 people (it's hard to remember) who >told me (face to face) they hate this policy, and it felt like there >was >a broad consensus that it was really against a team spirit, plus it >made >little sense to have a package team maintained with strong ownership. I >wouldn't name the persons I have in mind publicly, because they haven't >granted me the permission to do so, and therefore, it wouldn't be nice >to do so. > >All of this is just feelings I had during conversations with others, >and >of course, cannot be accounted as just plain facts, so just take it as >it is: just a report of the feeling I had when talking with others, >that >it looks like I'm far from the only one disliking this policy because >of >the above mentioned reasons. > >As Louis-Philippe wrote, it's very much ok to delay this conversation, >but sooner or later, it will come back on the table. Personally, I've been judicious in putting myself as Maintainer in DPMT and PAPT packages. If we were to ditch the current policy, my immediate response would be to remove DPMT/PAPT from uploaders and maintain them outside the team. It's about 1/4 of my DPMT/PAPT packages. I suspect I'm not the only one. Your proposal is not cost free for the teams. Scott K
Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
On 11/11/19 9:21 AM, Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY wrote: > For the record, it looks like this policy comes from the package > "developers-reference", section "Collaborative maintenance". Absolutely not. The developers-reference doesn't tell what the Python team policy is when the Uploaders field contains the team address. It only tells that it is possible to do that, not what it implies in our team. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
For the record, it looks like this policy comes from the package "developers-reference", section "Collaborative maintenance". -- Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY PGP 015AE9B25DCB0511D200A75DE5674DEA514C891D
Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
On 11/10/19 1:20 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote: > is there any public trace of these "many voices"? Just like when we discussed moving away from SVN to Git, we can't know the exact number unless we have a kind of poll/vote (but we don't actually *have* to start such poll... I'm just saying it's hard to know otherwise). However, I can account for maybe 5 people (it's hard to remember) who told me (face to face) they hate this policy, and it felt like there was a broad consensus that it was really against a team spirit, plus it made little sense to have a package team maintained with strong ownership. I wouldn't name the persons I have in mind publicly, because they haven't granted me the permission to do so, and therefore, it wouldn't be nice to do so. All of this is just feelings I had during conversations with others, and of course, cannot be accounted as just plain facts, so just take it as it is: just a report of the feeling I had when talking with others, that it looks like I'm far from the only one disliking this policy because of the above mentioned reasons. As Louis-Philippe wrote, it's very much ok to delay this conversation, but sooner or later, it will come back on the table. Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
> On 11/8/19 8:54 AM, intrigeri wrote: > > - In https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin, > >the "Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields" section > >mentions an "unwritten policy". Said policy seems to have been > >written since: > > > > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst > > It's probably time to revisit this policy. I've heard many voices > telling that a package should either be in the team, or just not, and I > very much agree with this. This middle-ground makes no sense. is there any public trace of these "many voices"? i, for one, very much like this policy, and would like to continue having it; and btw, it is still in place so everyone should adhere to it (since they promised to so when joining the team). -- Sandro "morph" Tosi My website: http://sandrotosi.me/ Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi
Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
Hey, On 09/11/19 2:42 am, Louis-Philippe Véronneau wrote: > On 19-11-08 16 h 01, Thomas Goirand wrote: >> Hi intri! >> >> I'm very glad to count you as a member of the team! Welcome. [1] >> I'd be glad if more perl team members join, it's so much always a >> pleasure to meet you at each debconf. >> >> On 11/8/19 8:54 AM, intrigeri wrote: >>> - In https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin, >>>the "Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields" section >>>mentions an "unwritten policy". Said policy seems to have been >>>written since: >>> >>> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst >> It's probably time to revisit this policy. I've heard many voices >> telling that a package should either be in the team, or just not, and I >> very much agree with this. This middle-ground makes no sense. > We now have a proper way to propose updates to the policy [1]! I am not sure where we stand on the following idea, but I'd like to see it float across. Something I'd like to propose is to have more *owners* than just 5 of them. Just having 5 people in the team who everyone relies on for being granted access doesn't seem like a very nice idea to me. Whilst they are doing a nice job, I feel every DD[1] should be able to grant access. I don't quite like how the access is just limited to 5 people throughout debian-python. [1]: we can come up with some other metric to bump ACL level, too, but we should *definitely* come up with something. One way forward is to add DDs as owner and every other person as a maintainer. Suggestions open. Best, Utkarsh signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
On 19-11-08 16 h 01, Thomas Goirand wrote: > Hi intri! > > I'm very glad to count you as a member of the team! Welcome. [1] > I'd be glad if more perl team members join, it's so much always a > pleasure to meet you at each debconf. > > On 11/8/19 8:54 AM, intrigeri wrote: >> - In https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin, >>the "Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields" section >>mentions an "unwritten policy". Said policy seems to have been >>written since: >> >> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst > > It's probably time to revisit this policy. I've heard many voices > telling that a package should either be in the team, or just not, and I > very much agree with this. This middle-ground makes no sense. We now have a proper way to propose updates to the policy [1]! Once the DPMT and the PAPT teams have been merged (see [2]), we will have to clean up the Python Team's wikis. I guess it would also be a good time to revisit things like that "unwritten" policy :) [1]: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst#L154 [2]: https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/merge_requests/10 -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ po...@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄ signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
Hi intri! I'm very glad to count you as a member of the team! Welcome. [1] I'd be glad if more perl team members join, it's so much always a pleasure to meet you at each debconf. On 11/8/19 8:54 AM, intrigeri wrote: > - In https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin, >the "Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields" section >mentions an "unwritten policy". Said policy seems to have been >written since: > > https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst It's probably time to revisit this policy. I've heard many voices telling that a package should either be in the team, or just not, and I very much agree with this. This middle-ground makes no sense. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo) [1] I have no admin rights to add you, but welcome anyways...
