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

Re: New-maintainer - STOP THAT SHIT

> --FsscpQKzF/jJk6ya
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> 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" ?

Actually, I did, sorry. (Note the "02:02:58AM" timestamp).
> > > 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 a=
> nd
> > 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.

a) How many people use Debian on ARM?
b) How is not saying "well, use stable" wrong? (Is it even IN stable).

Note those two words - "testing", "unstable".
They IMPLY shit is going to go wrong.

> > I think prioritizing people is wrong,
> You're priveleged to think what you want to think.
> > <flamingheapofsarcasm>because the existing sponsorship system works so we=
> ll,=20
> > right? And people don't need the "magical ring of Debian Developership" t=
> o do=20
> > "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.

Point taken; thankyou for the early warning?
> > 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".

The first one is a solution that works. Like Craig said, with the amount of
Debian people, I'm sure there's at least three that could reliably do DAM.
And wtf suggested that second solution?!?

> > 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 f=
> or
> > 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,"=20
> =2E..you'd have less than $6.50.

I was just making a point.

> > 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 par=
> allel
> > > > development, and it needs to, since we aspire to put a wrapper around
> > > > every single piece of useful free software we can find.=3D20
> > > 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?

OK, s/stopped/stalled/

> > > Once someone's in, they can [...]
> > Which is why we have the P&P check, the T&S check, and the ID check. Scri=
> pt
> > kiddies would NOT have the patience to wait a year, sometimes more (18
> > months from one I heard), just to do something like that.=20
> 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.

Um, if you didn't snip out the last bit of that paragraph, you'd see me
pointing out that I have indeed got my key signed by 4 developers & 2 in the
NM queue. I emailed this to my AM on Sunday, no response as yet.
> > 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.

No. That is completely wrong. Again, stop twisting my words, but I'm right
here ;)
I said we don't need more. COMPLETELY different argument from "remove the
existing ones". *shakes head*

> > 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.

Well, that's what the ID check is for. You have other developers verify your
identity and papers, and then GnuPG sign your key.

> > I don't expect them to make me personally happy. I expect them to not wie=
> ld
> > authority they DO NOT HAVE (Joey).=20
> What're you talking about? Joey just tried to get everyone to stop
> bitching about how long it takes to get an account.

... and not worry about the NM queue at all (sponsorship works fine!).

> > 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".

No-one said that. There's a difference between incompetency and the current
DAMs. I am told that Joey has resigned, and I don't know James at all, but
adding DAMs certainly speeds up the wait. (Up until a certain point) more
hands make lighter work. And faster.
> > > 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 sh=
> it
> > without giving any (well, very rarely). Some people try to tie in "respec=
> t"
> > and "authority", but, to be honest, I don't care.=20
> 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.

As indeed it is. The large problem, as I have already stated is that you,
Ben Collins, etc, have not gone through the current NM system, much less as
it is right now, as an unknown. IT SUCKS. Adding more checks and balances
won't help (don't twist my words - keep the existing ones).


Reply to: