Re: New-maintainer proposal
On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 04:49:49AM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> > Although I have been in Debian for just one year, so far I haven't noticed
> > *that* many people who are confused about the number of the mailing lists.
>
> I wasn't saying that they were confused by the multiplicity of lists, but
> by the lack of information about activies and decissions made on lists
> that "no one is required to subscribe to". I speak to the cluelessness
> addressed by the new maintainer team about the most recent influx of
> developers, and suggest that the fractured mailing lists are a
> contributing factor to this cluelessness.
>
> The fact is, that if you really want to know what is going on with Debian,
> you really must subscribe to all the lists, and we have no requirements
> that maintainers subscribe to any of them.
>
> The cohesiveness of the original group I joined was primarily maintained
> by the fact that we all read the same mailing list, so anything "Debian"
> was heard by all. The fracturing of this communication medium into ever
> increasing fine detail, without the requirement that anyone be aware of
> anything that may go on there, is what I see as the major contributing
> factor to all the factional in-fighting that seems to be the prevalent
> mode of communication today.
All this depends on what you consider a simple maintainer must do in Debian
- to "really want to know what is going on with Debian" is a too much
engagement for quite a large part of our developer base (my estimate, YMMV).
> > I find it quite nice to be able to select what Debian material I want to
> > read.
>
> And if there is important information being dicussed on one of the list
> that you don't want to read, you miss it. While you are a reasonable
> fellow who doesn't go ballistic when they find out someone has been
> "plotting" behind their backs, every instance of such a snafu comes about
> as the result of information known to a few on a specific list that has
> not been adequately communicated to the rest of the group. Someone is
> always left out under these circumstances.
This depends on what you consider to be important information. Severe
breakage and overall chaos in e.g. our Python and Python-related packages
is important information - but not for me, because neither I maintain
any Python-related packages nor do have any interest in Python at all.
> > So, you wanted to say that a lot of developers indeed are subscribed to
> > debian-devel list?
>
> No, I'm saying that we say it is ok if you don't subscribe, resulting in
> many developers _not_ being subscribed.
In a perfect world, people would subscribe to debian-devel list, but a lot
of people (developers) don't do it simply because they don't have
time/money/will to track that kind of large volume list.
Still, even without being subscribed to debian-devel, one can have quite
nice view of internal Debian ongoings just by reading debian-devel-announce,
debian-announce and and debian-news (or reading the weekly news some other
way). YMMV.
> We allow them to not subscribe, and they take the option.
Not all of them. Most of them, though...
> > Well - with this discussion, which doesn't fit in the charter of that
> > list (IMHO), we just might be causing some of those to
> > unsubscribe from the list!
>
> Not if being subscribed to -devel was a requirement for all developers. We
> could then discard most of the other lists.
I wouldn't want that kind of requirement enforced, then.
> > > So, do what I do when a thread turns into a flame war, just don't read it!
> >
> > Maybe that's easy for you (and me, for now) to say something like that - but
> > people who pay by the byte, and pay a lot for it, won't be so joyful about
> > that...
>
> I also pay for my internet connection. Not by the byte, but there are
> inherent personal costs of doing business as a developer not matter where
> you are. Each prospective maintainer would then be able to decide before
> becoming a developer, whether or not such costs are worth the return. If
> you are not able to shoulder the load, why _must_ you be a Debian
> developer?
You seem to forget that people can be maintaining one small, simple
package and still be considered Debian developers. i.e. maintainers.
Maybe we should start diferentiating between those who are "developers"
and those who are only "maintainers"? Ugh, I don't want to touch that...
> > > I think the main point I would make about the proposal for new-maintainer
> > > is this: If this is a proposal that developers are going to be expected to
> > > vote on, then the discussion should be carried on debian-vote, not some
> > > list who's primary purpose is to provide an adequate venue for flame wars.
> >
> > Are the developers going to be expected to vote on it? We didn't vote on
> > anything regarding the old new-maintainer group, IIRC...
>
> We have a constitution that takes proposals and makes them into Debian
> practice by a voting process. If you make a formal proposal, I would
> expect that you intended to call for a vote. Wichert appeared to be making
> a "formal" proposal, just because he is our fearless leader.
Allright then. When the proposal is made, it'll be announced on
-devel-announce and -vote, so I doubt anyone will miss it... and
there's always the option "Further discussion" on the ballot.
> > [1] My, oh my... poor wording? We didn't expect *that* from you... :)
>
> I'm sorry to disapoint you, but my feet are just as clay as the next guy.
But I was just kidding! :)
--
enJoy -*/\*- don't even try to pronounce my first name
Reply to: