Re: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.
Anthony Towns <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 11:06:39AM -0700, Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 03:28:54AM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > It's fine that he feels blocked. I feel blocked from getting testing
> > > working as well as it should because the security team aren't willing
> > > to support it. Every now and then I try to convince them to change
> > > their minds. So far they haven't, and don't look like ever doing so,
> > > but that doesn't make them bad people, and no matter what I want a
> > > difference answer, or how much I might know about their job, they're
> > > the ones in the best position to make that call. And until I do the
> > > job myself or convince someone else to do it, and demonstrate that
> > > it's doable, I've got no cause to expect _any_ assistance from the
> > > security team.
> > I'm assuming that when you attempt to convince them there is at least
> > some two way conversation?
> I've asked in the past, I've been told that they don't have
> time. Nothing's changed since then to change that conclusion, so I haven't
So they did answere. Big difference.
Also you acknowledge the fact that they are continiously
overworked. So its not only a tmporary problem.
> asked again. People outside of the security team have offered to help,
> but none of them have actually gotten beyond the point of offering to
> actually do anything. I believe the last time we would've discussed this
The buildd people are offering and are already doing something and
working around James. So its gone far further than just a plain offer.
> was in 2002, and probably then as an aside on a thread in -private.
> Can you see the difference between that and flaming people on -devel?
Yes, you have communication and you lack people actually alreadydoing
> Can you possibly imagine that choosing that path might make it easier
> to have two-way conversations in future if something does change?
Sure, replacing (or enhancing) James with someone that communicates
would make communicating a hell of a lot easier. Can you deny that?
> > > No, going to the mailing-list is a way to pressure the individual into
> > > doing something they don't want. Sometimes that's appropriate, but
> > > it's very rare; certainly much rarer than actually happens.
> > Worked in the case of my e-mail to -devel.
> > The DPL stepped in and improved the level of documentation provided to
> > NM applicants. This seems like a change for the better to me.
> Did you at any point ask Martin, either as front desk or as DPL, to look
> into this privately and in a friendly, non-accusatory manner? Did you
> at any point offer any help (and follow through on that offer)?
I just followed Debians black-on-white procedure: (The ping for the DAM)
7.4 Dealing with inactive and/or unreachable maintainers
If you notice that a package is lacking maintenance, you should make
sure that the maintainer is active and will continue to work on their
packages. It is possible that they are not active any more, but
haven't registered out of the system, so to speak. On the other hand,
it is also possible that they just need a reminder.
The first step is to politely contact the maintainer, and wait for a
response, for a reasonable time. It is quite hard to define
"reasonable time", but it is important to take into account that real
life is sometimes very hectic. One way to handle this would be send a
reminder after two weeks.
If the maintainer doesn't reply within four weeks (a month), one can
assume that a response will probably not happen. If that happens, you
should investigate further, and try to gather as much useful
information about the maintainer in question as possible. This
It is also allowed to post a query to email@example.com,
asking if anyone is aware of the whereabouts of the missing
And now your criticising me for it? (in your other mail on this thread)
> Frankly, that sort of response makes it harder for me to countenance
> people responding to the points raised in this sort of thread at all. I
> don't believe we should be encouraging flaming -devel as a first resort.
If you think that is inappropriate you should look into changing the
developers reference accordingly.