[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New-maintainer - STOP THAT SHIT

On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 02:02:58AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Well, having someone say "I'm going to setup and maintain an arm
> > autobuilder, have a look at http://foo.bar.org/~buildd/ where I've
> > already got it half working" versus someone saying "I don't really feel
> > comfortable doing more than one or two packages yet" seems a good start.
> > (cf, the Tasks and Skills check).
> Stop twisting my words.

Eh? How was that twisting your words? Did you miss the word "yet" ?

> > And I mean, it'd be nice to not need to prioritise people, but we still
> > don't seem to be able to handle the volume of new maintainer applicants
> > we have effectively, so we need to do *something*.
> Like, get the DAM part to work effectively? Anyway, how do the priority and
> volume arguments tie in?

"We need a new arm autobuilder: the arm port is barely maintained,
and without an autobuilder it's going to break testing when it gets
implemented. Ooo, look, here are some people who've already been helping
out with Debian indirectly for a year or more (in Chris Rutter's case,
he'd been in the queue for ages, but had to reapply due to losing his
key; Phil Blundell's the upstream maintainer for the net-tools package,
and works on the toolchain for arm)."

Now, we could just let those people sit in the queue for as long as Marek
has, say, and let the arm port disintegrate while they're waiting and
hope they don't get frustrated and give up. Or we could just say "yes,
we know this is queue-jumping, but the project needs these people now",
and approve them earlier.

> I think prioritizing people is wrong,

You're priveleged to think what you want to think.

> <flamingheapofsarcasm>because the existing sponsorship system works so well, 
> right? And people don't need the "magical ring of Debian Developership" to do 
> "real work", right?</flamingheapofsarcasm>

No, the sponsorship program is a ridiculous waste of effort. It's only
slightly less of a waste of effort than having every n-m who's been
sitting in the queue wanting to help Debian do nothing at all.

> > So apart from wishful thinking, what's the point of worrying about it?
> Because it pisses people off?

So does Cc'ing list mails to people.

> Or, suggesting solutions that work (i.e. DAM, etc), and talking
> constructively about it (well, some parts of this thread, at least) about
> it, they work bloody well in my experience.

I haven't noticed any suggestions other than "replace the DAMs or at least
add some new DAMs" (and who will these new DAMs be, exactly?) or "do away
with n-m entirely and give accounts to everyone who asks immediately".
Neither of which are "solutions that work".

> Look, there's a difference between whining and complaining. This is a
> legitimate complaint. The NM process is a PAIN IN THE ARSE. If I had 1c for
> every single time a current developer had told me "If I had to go through
> all of this rigmarole then, I wouldn't have bothered," 

...you'd have less than $6.50.

> This is legitimate, and something needs to be done about it.

``Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do it.''

> > > Finally, the debian packageing scheme allows for a high degree of parallel
> > > development, and it needs to, since we aspire to put a wrapper around
> > > every single piece of useful free software we can find.=20
> > And the Debian security model only allows us one line of defence against
> > incompetent or rogue contributors: new-maintainer.
> So, how does the DAM stopping the queue fix this?

The DAM hasn't stopped the queue. What're you talking about?

> > Once someone's in, they can [...]
> Which is why we have the P&P check, the T&S check, and the ID check. Script
> kiddies would NOT have the patience to wait a year, sometimes more (18
> months from one I heard), just to do something like that. 

But then, neither would you. You've been waiting, what, two months,
and haven't completed the identity check yet, yet you're still flying
off the handle about the length of the wait.

> Packeting from
> Romania seems to work just fine so far. We have enough checks and balances
> in NM already.

Yes, we do. You're the one advocating removing them.

> More than most places that actually EMPLOY people have.

Places that employ people usually have physical access to the people
they employee, and come from the same jurisdiction and thus can verify
identity papers. These add significant amounts of deserved trust, that
just aren't readily available over the Internet.

> I don't expect them to make me personally happy. I expect them to not wield
> authority they DO NOT HAVE (Joey). 

What're you talking about? Joey just tried to get everyone to stop
bitching about how long it takes to get an account.

> And why is pointing out that the DAM stage is the biggest bottleneck in
> Debian and needs to be fixed, soon, pointless? And a "waste of time"?

Because it's generally obvious? Because no one's actually making any
useful or productive suggestions on how to fix it? Because every other
message about it seems to be accompanied by an undercurrent to the effect
of "The current DAMs are completely incompetent, a trained monkey who
just always hit <create account> could do a better job".

> > And all of this random bitching about how new-maintainers are treated
> > so unfairly without even a "I really appreciate how much Joey and James
> > have done for the project, but..." ? Call me old fashioned, but that's
> > just rude.
> They pay us out, we pay them out. It works both ways, AJ. I don't take shit
> without giving any (well, very rarely). Some people try to tie in "respect"
> and "authority", but, to be honest, I don't care. 

Some people tie in "respect" to "has dedicated untold hours since before
I'd even heard of this project".

And arguing this point just makes you look like an ungrateful brat.

But, I suppose that, also, is your privelege.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
                       -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001

Attachment: pgpfzbB5CeE1u.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: