Bug#573745: python maintainance: next steps
(Note: this email expresses my personal opinions only, not those of the
other proponents.)
Le mardi 11 mai 2010 à 23:08 +0200, Andreas Barth a écrit :
> However, there have been some talks within the tech ctte and with different
> people inside the Debian python community. That needed time, and we prefer
> to get to a resolution a bit later than to one that doesn't work. I doubt
> we can get to a final decision as of now.
First of all I’d like to express my sadness to see these discussions,
again, having being conducted privately. We have now several years
behind us that show this is a bad idea, and the CTTE, asked to resolve
this matter, chose to adopt the same technique.
> The complaints are mostly non-technical. Re the technical parts, e.g. the
> discussion within Debian about "where to store files" brought two upstream
> proposals (PEPs) which would fix some disagreements in an good and
> forward way.
You shouldn’t be too optimistic about the upstream proposal, since it
only allows to do a tenth of the needed job. There’s a huge work
remaining if we want to drop the symlink farms, starting with dealing
with a way to handle which versions are supported by which file.
> I don't want to loose Matthias contributions to python
> within Debian and the python community.
This is completely irrelevant, unless Matthias threatened to stop
contributing unless he can keep setting the rules. But I know the CTTE
wouldn’t take such “don’t touch my garden” blackmail into account, of
course.
> In order to be able to get things going within the python community, we
> should establish a python core team that is trusted by all people involved.
>
> "Trusted by all people involved" definitly includes trusted by Matthias as
> current python maintainer, and trusted by the people who signed the request
> to the technical committee (of course, in worst case I'm willing to just
> decide on the membership of the core team). (There is an obvious conclusion
> who can't be member of the core team.)
> So far for now. Comments?
It means giving a veto power to Matthias about who can or cannot
contribute, while not giving this power to others. Which really, really
doesn’t make much difference with a situation where he can decide alone
which contributions can go in.
I think that practically speaking, it won’t change a thing.
Oh, a completely unrelated comment: it looks to me that the Python 2.6
transition is going to delay the squeeze freeze date.
Anyone has some pop-corn?
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `' “If you behave this way because you are blackmailed by someone,
`- […] I will see what I can do for you.” -- Jörg Schilling
Reply to: