Re: Re-thinking Debian membership
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 10:02:42AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 02:49:13PM +0200, Michael Hanke wrote:
> > Thinking about this again, 'public' access to the keyring could also
> > be a way to address the 'large number of inactive developers' --
> > _if_ they exist. Anyone could trigger the removal of anybody (using
> > the staging approach outlined above) -- cleaning the keyring becomes
> > much like mass bug reporting (and maybe should even follow the same
> > procedure, ie. announce what you want, let it be discussed
> > publicly, ...)
>
> No, we already have a procedure for that.
Well, there is already a procedure for everything, but that doesn't mean
that the status quo is optimal.
> If you want to help over with that, step in and help the currently
> understaffed MIA team.
This is the main point! Changing the default from 'once in, in forever'
to 'in as long as being active' makes the MIA team obsolete.
I do realize, that it is not that simple. As we have the concept of
packages being more or less 'owned' by their maintainers, some desire to
determine whether a package has to be orphaned remains -- which has to
be done someone. But the whole situation, including the workload of the
MIA team should improve dramatically once each project member gets an
automatic expiration date attached, because it shifts the need to
initiate an action from 'the project' to its members.
Michael
--
GPG key: 1024D/3144BE0F Michael Hanke
http://apsy.gse.uni-magdeburg.de/hanke
ICQ: 48230050
Reply to: