Bug#573745: Please decide on Python interpreter packages maintainership
Okay, this isn't going to make anyone happy, but here goes.
I don't think anything new is happening with this bug, and while I've
argued in the past that keeping things like this open for a while to see
what happens can be useful, I think we've long passed the point of that
here. We need to not leave this in limbo and just vote on it; I don't
think we're going to get substantially more information than we have
already, and I don't think the situation is changing appreciably over the
situation last March.
The question is, what's the ballot? Obviously, one ballot option, based
on the previous discussion here, is something like:
A. While several issues with public communication, coordination, and
collaboration in Python maintenance are very concerning, the Technical
Committee is unconvinced that the proposed alternatives will be better
for the project as a whole. The Technical Committee therefore declines
to replace the maintainer of the Python interpreter packages, but
strongly encourages the current Python maintainer to accept
comaintainers for the package.
I think a second ballot option is Ian's proposal at:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=573745#335
B. The Technical Committee have been petitioned to decide on the
maintainership of the python packes. We agree with the substance of
the complaint, but do not feel able to directly select the replacement
maintainers. Therefore:
We declare that the python packages (full list below) are now orphaned,
exercising our power in s2 of the Constitution.
Please would those interested in taking over Python maintenance form an
appropriate team and take over the package. If competing teams should
come forward, the package should be taken over by the largest.
assuming Ian still thinks this is a good idea given Steve's response.
Steve's response proposes a third option, namely:
C. The Technical Committee exercises our power under 6.1.2 of the
Constitution to remove the current maintainer of the Python interpretor
packages. It delegates the task of choosing a new maintenance team for
the Python packages to the DPL.
I have to admit that I don't like this option at all, and Steve didn't
seem to care for it either. Unless someone wants to actually advocate for
it, I am inclined to not include it on the ballot.
There's also the option in the original message to the Technical
Committee, which I think should probably be on the ballot in some form:
D. The Technical Committee exercises our power under 6.1.2 of the
Constitution to designate:
- Luca Falavigna <dktrkranz@debian.org>
- Josselin Mouette <joss@debian.org>
- Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>
- Bernd Zeimetz <bzed@debian.org>
as the new maintenace team for the Python interpretor packages. (This
of course assumes that all of those people still want to be part of the
maintenance team; we should ensure we have an accurate list before we
vote.)
and then....
E. Further discussion.
Reactions from the rest of the TC to that ballot and the other issues
listed above?
I would like this to not slip back into limbo again, since it's clear that
the problem is neither going to go away nor is provoking any substantively
new discussion. I think we should take some time to craft a reasonable
ballot, but I'd like us to start voting on this within a week or two and
reach some sort of conclusion.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: