Re: Bug#573745: Initial draft of resolution of the Python Maintainer question
On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Don Armstrong writes ("Re: Bug#573745: Initial draft of resolution of the Python Maintainer question"):
> > On Fri, 28 Sep 2012, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > If that is the case, I suggest to briefly mention that the options
> > > have been formed discussing "with all relevant and interested
> > > parties, on the -python list" or something similar. A relevant
> > > reference would be:
> > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2012/04/threads.html#00008
> >
> > I don't have a problem with that, except that I think that shouldn't
> > be in the resolution itself. [Though perhaps an additional sentence in
> > the opening explanatory paragraph would be enough to document that?]
>
> Is there some reason we can't add a new item
>
> N. All relevant and interested parties have been canvassed, via the
> -python list, to find what the possible teams of maintainers are
> for the python interpreter packages. See
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2012/04/threads.html#00008
>
> to the resolution ?
We certainly could; I just felt that it seemed to document part of the
method we used to arrive at the options instead of the options
themselves. It's not a big deal to me either way.
I've gone ahead and added that paragraph as a new #4, and renumbered
accordingly. [See attached and git for details.]
Don Armstrong
--
Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that
you do it.
-- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu
diff --git a/573745_python_maintainer/dla_draft.txt b/573745_python_maintainer/dla_draft.txt
index 65035ca..137dd7d 100644
[--- a/573745_python_maintainer/dla_draft.txt-]
{+++ b/573745_python_maintainer/dla_draft.txt+}
@@ -36,21 +36,27 @@ replace the maintainer, or it can decide not to replace the
maintainer. Either decision will appear to validate one problematic
behavior or the other.
[-Therefore,-]
4. {+All relevant and interested parties have been canvassed, via the
-python list, to find what the possible teams of maintainers are for
the python interpreter packages. See
https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/20120403083658.GB30420@upsilon.cc
and the ensuing thread.
Therefore,
5.+} The committee expresses its disappointment in the communication
problems which have lead to this issue, and strongly suggests that all
involved parties be as awesome to each other as possible. In the advent
of communication failures or problems, we request that any involved
party contact a third party (such as a member of the technical
committee) to mediate.
[-5.-]
{+6.+} The committee requests that all major changes in the python
interpreter packages which will affect other packages in Debian be
announced on the appropriate mailing lists before they take effect so
they can be planned for and/or unplanned problems discussed.
[-6.-]
{+7.+}
A The committee resolves that the maintainer of python interpreter
A packages in Debian is a team made up of members decided by (and
A including) Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org>
@@ -62,5 +68,5 @@ B including) Jakub Wilk <jwilk@debian.org>
C The committee declines to change the maintainer of the python
C interpreter packages in Debian.
C
C [-7.-] {+8.+} The committee requests that Matthias Klose consider adding
C additional co-maintainers to the python interpreter package.
Reply to: