Re: We have a problem
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 05:59:43PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 17:59:43 +0200
> From: John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de>
> Subject: Re: We have a problem
> To: Patrick Ouellette <pouelle@debian.org>, Debian Hamradio Maintainers
> <debian-hams@lists.debian.org>
>
> On 05/06/2015 04:24 PM, Patrick Ouellette wrote:
> > You need to do more research. I was the maintainer for the ax25
> > suite of packages and the soundmodem package. It may have been in
> > prehistoric times for you, but you should never say never unless
> > you are absolutely sure.
>
> I grepped for your name in the changelogs of soundmodem
>
The soundmodem activity predates the user space package. Sorry for the
confusion. Back when soundmodem was part of the kernel sources, there
were tools packaged for userspace management of the soundmodem. This would
be back in 1999-2001 time frame.
> >
> http://metadata.ftp-master.debian.org/changelogs/main/s/soundmodem/unsta
> ble_changelog
>
> and I couldn't find it. When did this maintainership happen? You did
> some uploads for the ax25 packages but as far as I can see, your name
> was not removed there.
>
> > Another indication of you needing to do just a bit more research is
> > the recent "soundmodem is orphaned and unmaintained upstream" oops.
> > A simple email to Thomas would have given you the answer but
> > instead you apparently did a brief web search and decided to call
> > the package dead upstream.
>
> Where is he saying that? He didn't change the Homepage field in
> debian/control, did he?
>
He actually filed bug 781206 against soundmodem claiming:
"soundmodem's upstream maintainer is no longer maintaining the package"
> > One of the hallmarks of Debian has been respect for other Debian
> > Developers and the work they do. Part of that is asking the other
> > person if they want or need help. Even when there is no response,
> > the expectation is a delayed non-maintainer upload is done unless
> > it is a critical security issue.
>
> One of the other hallmarks is also to not trying to bad-mouth other
> DMs and DDs and the fact that you CC'ed Sylvestre with your email when
> Sylvestre is Iain AM is much worse than making such mistakes that you
> accuse Iain of.
>
Actually CCing the AM is something that should be done when there is
praise for or concern about a prospective maintainer's actions.
> > Back when the hamradio maintainers group was created, all the
> > Debian Developers who were active in ham radio packages were added
> > to all the ham radio packages as uploaders and the owner was
> > changed to the hamradio maintainers group. This was done to make it
> > easier for maintainence of the packages because there were a number
> > of people available to handle "emergency" situations as well as
> > general maintainence.
>
> That's non-sense. You shouldn't include _ALL_ people from a certain
> group but only the maintainers who are actually _uploading_ the
> package, hence the name _Uploaders_. If you need to perform a
> non-maintainer upload, guess what, you can use the non-maintainer
> upload feature.
>
The "all" we are talking about were people who were interested in maintaining
the ham radio packages and never amounted to more than 8 people. The ideal
was to show who was a member of the hamradio maintainers group if I recall
correctly.
> > Over the years since this was done, many of the people in the
> > original hamradio maintainers group moved on. I worked on the
> > packages I actually used and only in an extreme emergency build ad
> > upload packages I don't use. This way I know the package I upload
> > works.
>
> Even if you had done it for centuries, I wouldn't mean it's right.
> Again, if you need to perform an upload of a package you usually don't
> maintain, you make a non-maintainer upload, as simple as that.
>
> According to your logic, every package in Debian should list ALL ~1000
> Debian Developers in debian/control so they can perform an upload in
> "emergency".
>
Not my original ideal - I didn't create the group. Again, the idea was
not to include every developer, but those who were working on the ham tools.
FWIW, it has worked ok up until the last year or 2. I don't recall any
major problems with ham developers duplicating work or having conflicting
changes.
> > So you are now judge, jury and executioner with the power to
> > declare Debian Developers retired from the project? It is such a
> > relief to know you have the gift of reading people's hearts and
> > minds without consulting them.
>
> Dude, calm down. He didn't kick you out of Debian. He, rightfully,
> removed you from the list of Uploaders because, you know, you weren't
> uploading.
>
I am calm. This was not an instance of an unmaintained package. It was
a package that had not changed much upstream for the last couple of years
until the last week or so. He did not even have the common decency to ask
the hamradio maintainers list.
He was also fully aware I was devoting more time for Debian. He willfully
chose to not ask or even drop a note to the list that he wanted to/was
removing uploaders.
It is not the first time he has taken unilateral action concerning ham radio
packages, and other people have expressed concerns to me in private about this.
> > I am more than a little concerned that you haven't completed the NM
> > process and are able to upload packages....
>
> What the hell is this supposed to mean? Are you actually reading what
> you are saying here? You are philosophizing on how we should treat
> each other in Debian but then you are writing sentences like these.
>
That means we have someone, I am sure with good intentions, who has not
completed the Debian process for becoming a maintainer or developer. He has
been given root access to every machine that runs Debian. His demonstrated
penchant to run ahead with changes to existing packages without consulting
the maintainer group makes me a little nervous that he just might change
something over zealously, without considering all the circumstances, that may
cause unintentional difficulties for the users of the affected packages.
Pat
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)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=U1ez
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: