Re: The Debian Maintainers GR
On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Don't let the perfect be the ennemy of the good.
> I think one of the places where we're disagreeing is that I don't consider
> the current process fundamentally broken.
I don't think so (but it looks like Anthony seems to think so). I think it
works quite well (except for the delays at the DAM/keyring stage). My main
interest is not in replacing NM in any way, it's in opening the gate to
I've heard several times from people like Christope Berg, that being DD is
not required to maintain a package that requires 2-3 uploads per year. And
I agree with this. Still I think those people should get upload rights on
> So, basically, I consider the current system good. Not ideal, not
> something that couldn't stand to be improved, but good. And I don't want
> to see an unnecessary escalated confrontation (which apparently this is
> much more than it appeared) or any sort of "NM is broken, we must do
> something, this is something, therefore we must do this" proposal.
You can't prevent people from having this opinion. But it's definitely not
my motivation in defending DM and you don't endorse this point of view
simply by voting yes to that GR.
I've been somewhat disappointed by the lack of participation from NM
people in this proposal, but I still think that if it's endorsed by the
project they will use the advantages that this offers and that the NM
system will incorporate DM-upload rights somewhere in the process.
> varying and the process sometimes quite frustrating. I think the idea of
> letting someone upload packages before getting full DD rights is very
> sound and can be used to address some of those problems.
> (Ideally, in my opinion, there would be little or no sponsorship as there
> is today and instead there would be detailed review of one's packages
> leading to DM status for those packages as part of an NM process, with the
> other cases where that isn't appropriate done as team maintenance with the
> non-DD as part of a team. But that's an aside, and it may be that idea
> wouldn't hold water on further examination.)
I agree with this except that DM status doesn't forcibly leads to NM
I fully expect that some DD are afraid of the work of DM and that we'll
end up with some way to let people review uploads of all DM (being by
having debdiff of DM uploads sent to a mailing, or a dedicated web
interface, or whatever).
> > May I remind you that we're all volunteers and if you come up with such
> > a GR, most likely none of those people will feel concerned about
> > implementing it?
> Joerg already mostly wrote up the sort of thing I'd like to see. I should
> probably not be spending time writing GRs rather than doing work, but I'd
> be happy to see someone turn that into a GR. I probably shouldn't be
> spending time discussing GRs rather than doing work. :) (It's very hard
> to back out once I've put my oar in.)
Same for me. :-)
On that line I started this the other day:
Feel free to add your thoughts over there.
> > You need to have buy-in from ftpmasters too and here we have at least
> > one ftpmaster ready to work on the required infrastructure. Say him "no"
> > and you'll have trouble finding another ftpmaster to do something
> > similar.
> I doubt this, honestly. For one thing, I doubt that AJ, as much as that
> may be tempting, would actually hold a grudge that way for very long; he
> doesn't seem like that kind of person to me. For another, there are other
> ftpmasters, and there are people willing to do a lot of the coding. I
> expect we could work it out, although it may require more patience than
> people want to have.
I also think Aj would be open to another similar process. But I doubt any
will come up "magically". And up to now, elmo/neuro are always so busy
that relying on them to get a patch applied is a challenge in itself. :-(
> > Why do you trust DAM/FD to do the right thing more than the people
> > listed in the current GR ?
> Well, I discussed that largely above. I think they're doing a good job
Same here. That doesn't mean I don't trust the DM people (since as you
noted, there's quite some overlap). :-)
> However, I'd like to point out that the people listed in the GR *are* the
> same people as the DAM/FD except that the GR adds AJ, Joey Hess, and Ryan
> Murray. Ryan Murray is in the "already way overloaded category already"
> and AJ has already said that he doesn't want to do package review and
> seems to be more interested in doing the infrastructure work.
> So what it seems like you're proposing is that the world would be much
> better if Joey Hess could approve DMs. Did I miss something?
I trust Anthony and Joey to get the ball rolling. And even recruit new
members if needed.
I also hope that the people involved in the NM process will discuss
more positively how to improve the system once it's put in the place by
the project at large. I know that the proposal is not perfect and I know
that it will evolve.
> Maybe what I missed was some intention that the DM keyring maintainers be
> a rubber stamp on the advocacy process and not do any additional checks?
Well, there's nothing set in stone at that level. Some checks will be done
on the P&P level, on the GPG key and for the technical parts, and the GR
mentions one (preferrably more) DD willing to advocate.
I expect that the checks will depend on the trust that one has on the
For example, if I were to decide, I'd rather trust someone advocated by
Pierre Habouzit or Steve Langasek, but I would require another advocate
and do some checks if the advocating DD was one of our sponsoring
Also note that the DM process is public and any DD is free to check the
work of DMs and ask for removal of a DM if they see something too bad.
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :