Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
On 05/09/14 18:45, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Daniel Pocock writes ("Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg"):
>> This is really the root of the problem and I agree that it would be nice
>> to find ways to help them. A solution is good for the FTP masters and
>> good for the project.
>
> I agree.
>
>> Another way to look at your proposal may be to compare it to
>> alternatives (I'm not suggesting I personally agree with all of these,
>> but they are just some things that come to mind):
>>
>> a) let people self-certify packages when they wrote 100% of the code
>> themselves. People abusing this privilege would lose it.
>>
>> b) offer some facility for upstreams to certify their packages as 100%
>> free software by completing a DEP-5-like template and signing it with
>> the same key they use to sign their tags and release announcements.
>
> I think both of these are, mostly, ad-hoc ways of prioritising certain
> packages. (Since the effort of setting up such systems and monitoring
> compliance etc. is probably not less than that of reviewing the
> packages in question and coming to a judgement.)
>
> A more flexible approach along the same lines would be to allow
> packages to skip manual NEW review if countersigned by N DDs (who
> would presumably lose countersigning privileges it was later
> discovered that the package should have been rejected).
>
>> c) offer a paid review service. FTP masters and assistants can sell
>> their time through an auction process. [...]
>
> I hope this is a joke.
Not entirely
I was not suggesting people would pay to have their packages approved.
Only that there would be payment for consideration. If the payment was
completely transparent, if it motivated more people to join the FTP team
and if it increased throughput without compromising quality then it may
be worthy of discussion.
If it meant packages of a non-commercial nature were never getting
looked at then I personally would feel that is a loss for Debian.
>> d) the upload with binary JARs inside it was accepted by the NEW queue
>> software. Maybe the scripts could be stricter about rejecting such
>> packages before they reach FTP masters? Do the FTP masters publish
>> statistics on rejections that could be used to identify the top things
>> to scan and reject automatically?
>
> I'm sure the ftpmasters will welcome your patches to their decision
> support software.
I'd be happy to comment on that further if anybody could point me to
statistics about the types of things to look for. Maybe this could also
be a good idea for an OPW project?
Reply to: