Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity - status update
Hi Stefano,
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 09:21, Stefano Zacchiroli<zack@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 07:29:20AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
>> > some questions I still see without a clear answer:
>
> ACK on most answers from Luk, some more comments on some of them
> below.
>
>> > - what about non-DDs that are currently tracked in MIA database,
>> > along with DDs?
>> Nothing changes regarding MIA.
>
> Yes and no. My hope is that the implementation of this proposal would
> significantly reduce the workload of MIA, letting that team work only
> on non-DD maintainers.
That is the much more time-consuming than checking DDs. for our fellow
DDs we have several data sources (mls posts, uploads, key usage) to
track them, while we don't have anything similar for non-DDs. So
several manual researches are needed (either on lists.d.o, google, etc
etc).
So, while removing the "easiest" part (checking DDs) we are left with
the most difficult and time-consuming part.
>> > - what will happen to the packages of DDs deactivated by this
>> > proposal?
>
> I consider this totally orthogonal to the proposal per se and hence I,
> on purpose, avoided to raise the issue in the thread. See below.
>
>> Like with the WAT runs, there will very probably be a feedback to
>> the MIA Team.
>
> Uhm, I would prefer having feedback from that to QA directly. MIA is
> needed to discover missing-in-action people. With the implementation
> of this proposal we will know, among DD ranks, who is MIA without
> needing to chasing it any more. Hence the notification can, for this
> specific case, bypass MIA. But sure, downstream the effects should be
> the same as for packages of non-DD maintainers discovered to be MIA.
>
> What to do with such notification is a (not new) topic for -qa, not
> -project.
Ok, so there should be a communication of removed DDs, at least on
-private, so that DDs working on QA at least know it. if you/other
feel it unappropriate, please suggest some other form of communication
or ways to handle this. either in this proposal or at a later stage.
>> > - will the MIA team be dismantled? who's in charge of this? will you
>> > take care of removing all the traces of MIA team from Debian
>> > documentations (like wiki, devref, etc) or from wherever is
>> > referenced? (of course, if we decide to remove it and not "archive")
>> > or edit them, where needed?
>>
>> You are mixing WAT and MIA apparently. The current proposal may replace
>> the DAM's WAT runs AFAICS, it does *not* affect MIA except from the
>> feedback generated after deactivation of DDs.
>
> ACK. Again, I don't see MIA "dying" due to this proposal, I only see
> it re-focusing his work on non-DD maintainers.
see above: this way our work is reduced in number, to focus on the
most annoying, difficult, quite frustrating and pointless (non-DDs are
not part of the project, in a strict sense (don't get me wrong here, I
know they are valuable contributors, but they can't vote, blablabla)).
But I also have to be honest and affirm that we receive much less
requests for non-DDs than for DDs.
>> > - what to do about the current (yet unanswered) queries we've
>> > received? should we reply "please wait for <this> to be approved"?
>> > should we fulfill? when should we stop operations? (I'm personally not
>> > that motivated to work on something that's dying.)
>> There is no reason at all to change processing.
>
> Still, the question of what should be done in the interim for DD
> maintainers while the proposal actually gets implemented is a good
> one. Here we have a trade-off: on one hand you don't want to invest a
> lot of time in accounts that will be spotted more easily at the first
> run of this proposal; on the other hand, if the proposal gets time to
> get implemented (hey, here we're talking, but the burden of putting it
> up to speed has been pushed to somebody else!) you don't want to loose
> "MIA-chasing" abilities.
>
> I don't have _the_ answer for that. What I can do, if you are
> interested, is to hand over the list of potentially disabled DDs to
> pinpoint your MIA queries at them and avoid/focus MIA activities
> elsewhere.
Of course it would be welcome: I'll cross check the current "TODO"
list marking as 'pending on the proposal to be implemented'
accordingly.
>> > discuss with) the MIA team about this proposal (since the team main
>> > activities are under discussion here), either before or after your
>> > made it public.
>
> /me rolls eyes o_O
>
> It is true that I did not contact the MIA team in the first place; I
> do apologize for that, but at my defense I stress that I did not see,
> as I do not see now, this proposal dismantling MIA. Nevertheless,
> after my first message to -project some weeks ago you, as the only
> active MIA team member AFAIK,
Well, I might be the "most" active, not the only one.
> contacted me on IRC. At the end of that
Yes, I contacted you, and I was quite surprised by this sudden
proposal. Probably I should have made clear at that time that a
contact would have been welcome.
> brief chat, my understanding was that we agreed upon seeing how the
> proposal was going to be received on -project.
Yes, I wanted to see how's going (in fact I didn't reply to the
original thread), but since I think some points where still
unanswered, I took this update to ask them.
> I still do not see
> which "problem" this proposal causes to MIA and MIA team.
I think (I hope) I've explained above.
Cheers,
--
Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Reply to: