>>>>> "Andreas" == Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> writes:
Andreas> Hi to all brave candidates, thanks to you all to volunteer
Andreas> for the DPL job. I wish you all good luck for the
Andreas> elections and the future DPL my best wishes.
Andreas> Recently I've read the article "Winding down my Debian
Andreas> involvement" from Michael Stapelberg[1]. I consider that
Andreas> article an interesting reading and I would love to hear the
Andreas> opinion of the candidates about it.
I have read it as well.
As I said in my platform, I think turnover is good, and I do think
people get tired of doing the same thing. While it's sad to see people
go, it's much worse to see people stay when their heart is no longer in
the project. We've been much better about having people realize it is
time for them to go, realizing that the project will survive, and taking
care of themselves. I think this is a very positive change.
I am disappointed when people leave bitter and disheartened.
I specifically talked about my hopes for reducing that and addressing
some of the decision frustration in my platform.
Andreas> Besides your general opinion I'm interested in your opinion
Andreas> about some questions that immediately popped up when
Andreas> reading the article.
Andreas> 1. I followed the hint to rsync checked out the source
Andreas> package have read the 6k d/rules of it. In line with the
Andreas> request for modernisation I wonder whether the candidates
Andreas> see any chance to convince maintainers to stick to some
Andreas> standard like debhelper >= 9 as a recommended build tool.
Andreas> (Rsync is just a random example - I have seen several other
Andreas> packages that made my work as bug hunter harder than
Andreas> necessary and I know efforts like cross building which
Andreas> would profit heavily from some unification.)
I'd be happy to drive that discussion if elected DPL.
Could I count on your support in helping write up some of the
explanations of why actually having a policy that anticipated debhelper
would benefit people who work on multiple packages?
I talk in my platform about how I would drive a discussion.
Now, I cannot promise a particular outcome: that's for the project to
decide. However, I think even coming tho closure and learning that we
don't want to mandate debhelper >9 would be a huge win. We'd hopefully
learn why people feel that way and we would have closure.
Andreas> 2. I consider packaging in Git on salsa.debian.org a big
Andreas> move forward to some unified workflow for Debian packaging
Andreas> (thanks to Salsa admins by the way). Do you see any chance
Andreas> to convince maintainers to maintain their packages on
Andreas> salsa.d.o as a recommended development platform.
That's another discussion I'm interested in driving.
This one was already on my "I bet we want to spend some time there"
list.
I think that discussion will be more involved than the debhelper
discussion.
I'm not going to go into a lot of specifics on how I'd drive that
discussion though. I think I still need to do some of my homework and
talk to people who have driven part of that discussion in the past. I
also think getting to stuck in the details is not the point of the
campaign period.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature