On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:25:50 +0200, Damyan Ivanov wrote: > However, Xavier Oswald, who maintains a number of libauthen-*-perl > packages has objections on that last part. See the attached IRC log for > details. Thanks Xavier for bringing your concerns up on IRC, and thanks Dam for bringing the issue to the list. > One approach out that I see is to revert the DM-part of the group policy > and instead refuse to use DM-Upload-Allowed in all our packages. AFAIK > it is set only for one package -- libdevice-cdio-perl and Tincho has not > yet taken advantage of it. I think there are several questions. I'll try to put them in some order and add my personal opinions about them. * Do we want to use DM-Upload-Allowed? If no, problem solved :) I think the concept is useful in general even if we don't really use it at the moment. * If yes we have to decide on the procedure; the last discussion has led to what we have now in our Policy; IIRC the other alternative was to set DM-Upload-Allowed on all packages, but that was not really considered a good solution. I could live with both although I have a better gut feeling with the current approach than with the wide-open one. * If we stick with current Policy we have the recent issue of "linking" (non-DD and non-DM-for-that-package) people to packages; IIRC the last discussion showed that being credited by the changelog entries is enough for the people who answered; that's still true for me. But that doesn't solve the issue of "public visibility": - If visibility is a desire for ones own overview on the DDPO page I think the subscription feature on http://qa.debian.org/developer.php would do the job. - If it's about showing others (during NM, e.g.) the packages worked on I guess a pointer to the svn logs and/or a mail from some pkg-perl regular should do the job. - Another option might be to add a (XSB-)Co-Maintainer field to our packages; I think this has been discussed to. IMO it would be a logical separation of "people being allowed to upload $pkg" and "people working on and feeling responsible for $pkg"; unfortunately the field wouldn't show up very prominently anywhere (unless someone changes Debian Policy :)) Other ways to "escape" the problem are of course: - become a DM and get the upload rights for some packages activated - don't maintain the package within the group (but that's something I wouldn't suggest as I consider group maintenance superior) Personally I'm quite content with the current situation; I even consider not being in the Uploaders' field for each package I've ever touched an advantage with regard to the visibility of my DDPO page :) (but that's my working style, to help out with many packages instead of concentrating on a few, which is perfectly OK IMO too.) From my POV there are no changes needed; still I'd like to find a way to deal with Xavier's legitimate concerns but I'm not sure if my above thoughts really help. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. http://info.comodo.priv.at/ | gpg key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : debian: the universal operating system - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' member of https://www.vibe.at/ | how to reply: http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Bruce Springsteen: Let's Be Friends (Skin to Skin)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature