FTP masters willingly blocking OpenStack nova 2013.1 just right before the OpenStack summit
Dear ctte, dear (new) DPL,
After I had almost all of my packages approved just right before the
Openstack summit which starts in few hours now, the FTP masters decided
that it was wise to block my Nova package just 5 days before the summit,
for a reason which IMO isn't good enough. Please read this thread:
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/openstack-devel/2013-April/002257.html
Note that the upstream changelog issue was quickly solved (and I agreed
with the FTP masters view on it), though remains the "problem" of having
too many binaries, according to the FTP masters.
The following DDs have already agreed with my view on the mater:
- Ola Lundqvist
- Julien Danjou
- Mehdi Abaakouk
They are all involved in the packaging of OpenStack and are OpenStack
users, and therefore have a good understanding of the project.
I decided to leave up to before the OpenStack summit to the FTP masters,
so that they could approve Nova. With no reply from them, which made me
miss my dead line, I am left with no other option but to escalate the issue.
So, before I summit a bug to the ctte and escalate this issue, I would
like some advices from both the new DPL and the ctte.
I would like first the new DPL to express his view: is this the role of
the FTP masters to overrule the technical opinion of a DD? Do they have
the rights to block a package just on the ground that they only don't
like how many binary packages it contains? Shouldn't they use, like
every other DD, the BTS and the project lists to discuss such a
technical issue?
Note that I am already very upset about what happened because it puts me
in a less good position to discuss with Canonical folks about a joined
effort for the packaging of OpenStack, here at the summit in Portland. I
have expressed this concern publicly on the OpenStack packaging list,
and to the FTP master themselves, with absolutely no reaction from them.
It seems they don't care, or are willingly ignoring my repeated requests.
As a consequence, I am questioning the motivation behind all this, and
asking myself if we aren't seeing here (yet) another instance of
miss-behavior from Ganneff, who probably disliked the fact that I
defended my friend when he expelled him, and when I questioned the
possibilities of getting rid of the NEW queue in a debian-devel thread.
I have of course no proof to back this up, and will probably never know
if this really is an act of revenge, though I would like both the ctte
and the DPL to take note of the event as (very) inappropriate. I would
also like to point that the tone from Ganneff isn't acceptable. From
someone who is both DSA, FTP Master and DAM (why so many powerful roles
on a single pair of hands btw?), this isn't to be expected. For the
moment, I will just ignore this, but if it was to happen again anytime
soon, I will act upon it.
Now, I would like some advice on how to move forward. Leaving this rot
isn't an option for me.
To the ctte: What would be considered a reasonable delay before
submitting a bug to the ctte?
To the DPL: could the role of the FTP masters be clarified? I have
discussed multiple times with other DDs, and it seems that I'm not alone
thinking they are doing more than their mandates allows, when rejecting
packages on technical grounds (while their role is only validating the
licensing part of packages). Is this as well the view of the DPL?
Whatever the DPL thinks, could we have somewhere clear roles defined and
written on a simple document?
To all of you: what advice can you give to escalate this issue in the
best way possible?
Cheers (from my hotel room in Portland),
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: Congrats to Lucas. I'm truly satisfied you are our new DPL, and I
feel sorry that the first interaction I have with you as DPL is for
bringing this kind of shitty problem.
Reply to: