>>>>> "Stefano" == Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:
Stefano> On Sat, Mar 30, 2019 at 11:38:43PM +0100, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> And less "I'm the package maintainer, this is my castle, go away"
>> and more "This is how the majority does it, you follow, the
>> benefit of it being one way, not a dozen different, outweight
>> some personal preferences".
Stefano> Let's cut to the chase of this.
Stefano> Statement: every Debian package must be maintained in Git
Stefano> on salsa and every Debian Developer with upload rights to
Stefano> the archive should have commit/push right to every
Stefano> packaging repository on salsa.
So, with my DPL candidate hat on, I absolutely agree that this is an important
discussion to have. I think we've reached a point where we've discussed
enough of the issues that we can have a discussion around forming
consensus rather than a researchy discussion where we explore the
issues.
I plan on approaching this in a couple of phases.
I plan to reach out to salsa maintainers, DSA, and probably ftpmaster
(although it's not clear they have a direct need to be involved, it
seems important) and make sure I am framing the discussion well.
Then I'd start a discussion on -project or -devel; not 100% sure which
and try and guide that discussion to a consensus.
If one emerges, I'd call it. It wouldn't be important to get to
implementation details, just a consensus on the overall direction (and
things like must vs should).
If that consensus can be called, I'd delegate the decision of coming up
with an implementation approach. (Well, if the consensus is no we don't
want to do that, it might not require a delegation to implement the
status quo:-)
If we aren't going to reach a consensus I'd look into either proposing a
GR with multiple ballot options or delegating the decision to the TC.
TC vs GR would depend on whether the open issues seem like technical
ones clearly within the scope of the TC or non-technical policy.
I think asking the DPL candidates to state a position on this issue is
harmful. I think I could be more effective in driving this discussion
if I don't state a personal opinion. It's not the DPL's job to decide
issues like this: it's the DPL's job to lead the project in making these
decision. I'd encourage you to think more carefully before asking DPL
candidates to strongly state things that aren't the DPL's business in
the future.
That said, I'll answer, because the question having been asked, being
equivocal is perhaps more harmful.
I want to stress that my goal would be to come to a decision, not to
implement my will.
I agree with the above statement. Essential to my agreement is that you
say DDs should have push access not must have push access. I'd say that
an MR on salsa must be a reasonable way to contribute a patch, and that
DDs should have push access. During the discussion, we might decide
that DDs must have push access, but there are more open issues there
including the one Roberto brought up.
--Sam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature