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

Re: Handling of (inactive) Debian Accounts

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         I think the difference is that the MIA process is too
> conservative, 

It starts off being polite, indeed. And patient. You never know the
reason why a person is not so active anymore. Tbm gave a talk about how
it is done and why it is done like that in Oslo, 2003 (Debconf3). Worth

> and does not require an positive action on the part of maintainers, 

Yes, it does. They need to fix their packages, or they get orphaned.
When no packages are left, we talk to DAM.

> and starts with the default that all maintainers are active.

Yes. That's the deafult state for any DD, even when you file a bug in
their packages.

> Looking at people who vote for a DPL means that the DD's have to take
> an active role in indicating that they are present.

I was technically MIA for quite a bit, and still voted. 

> How many other MIA people are undiscovered by our current process? 

I'm sure there are plenty. And I *do* want to believe that no more than
25% of us are MIA. There's currently aprox 650 entries in the MIA db.
This does not mean that they are MIA now, but that they have been at
some point. This means people come and go in and out of MIA, and it's
just life.

> Have you considered that most of the other half are not around, and
> that our MIA process has not found them out?

I am not opposed to this as long as it is done in sync with MIA. I see
no reason to bother people twice about the same issue by different
Debian teams. Redundancy of data makes it harder to track people down,

  ·''`.             If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution
 : :' :                                            -- Emma Goldman
 `. `'           Proudly running Debian GNU/Linux (unstable)
   `-     www.amayita.com  www.malapecora.com  www.chicasduras.com

Reply to: