Hi Ansgar,
Am Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 09:53:59AM +0100 schrieb Ansgar 🙀:
> >
> > Several individuals shared with me that they either don't agree with the
> > current procedures/philosophy indoctrinated, they feel intimidated to
> > reach out and fear retaliation and in form of delayed or more strict NEW
> > processing, and any combination of the above.
>
> And I guess you as the project leader agree that the current DFSG and
> Archive Operation teams engage in intimidation and retaliation
> techniques (such as delayed and/or more strict NEW processing)?
I personally have no reason to believe that either of the current teams
engages in such behavior.
The sentence you quoted was intended to reflect what others shared with
me, not my personal view. I mentioned these concerns to explain why some
contributors have felt hesitant to engage with the DFSG team. While I
don't share these perceptions myself, I fully respect the experiences
and wishes of those who expressed them. In my opinion, it's always
important to listen carefully to engaged newcomers so we don't risk
discouraging their motivation.
> Do you think all team members should be removed from delegations and/or
> Debian membership for such behavior?
Since I have no indication that such behavior has actually occurred,
this question is moot.
Regarding the delegation aspect: this is precisely why I want to first
speak with the potential new members. Adrian Bunk has asked the right
question[1] (answer pending -- I've been mostly AFK the past two days)
about how new policies could be started and maintained.
To give a concrete example that recently came up on this list:
Back in January 2022, there was a discussion titled "Do we need to hide
packages in the NEW queue?" which included the statement from Russ
Allbery: "A lawyer cannot make that risk trade-off decision for us.
We'll have to make it as a project." (Thanks to Charles for finding that
in our archives.)
I have not found any comment from the FTPMaster delegates in that
thread. As DPL, I would expect the delegates responsible for this area
to engage in such a discussion, since these questions are central to the
scope of their delegation.
The decision to split the former FTPMaster team was made for several
reasons. One of them is that I'm very satisfied with the technical work
on DAK, the release process, and all the tasks covered by the Archive
Team -- and I want to use this opportunity to thank the Archive Team
members, and you in particular, Ansgar, for the excellent work in that
area. To say it clearly: I have no plans to change the Archive Team
delegation.
However, I'm concerned about the handling of NEW -- not about its speed,
but about the structural rigidity that makes it difficult to evolve the
process. Many members of the Debian community share this perception. The
potential new delegates have expressed clear interest in working
collaboratively on new policies and in implementing them.
Since the new delegation was announced, I haven't seen any indication
from the existing DFSG team members that they wish to support or
contribute to this effort.
> I'll add DAM and the community team as this seems problematic.
Could you please elaborate on what exactly you consider problematic?
Kind regards
Andreas.
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2025/11/msg00160.html
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2022/01/msg00360.html
--
https://fam-tille.de
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature