Bug#548867: Proposed patch to update Debian Developer's Duties chapter

[Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org>]

Le Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 04:47:22PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog a écrit :
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > Yes, I think that the release is important, and no, I do not think that we
> > should write vague encouragements the Developers reference. I think that it is
> > a place for precise informations, not for morale lessons.
> 
> I think that my patch contains precise information on what developers
> should do.
> 
> Nowhere in your comments have you shown that my wording implies "morale
> lessons".

I do not like for instance, the way you write:

  Lack of attention to RC bugs is grounds for the QA team to orphan the package.

In the pledge that inspired your patch, you present orphaning by the QA as a
sanction:

  [I will] not complain if the quality assurance team decides to orphan the package

I do not think that this reflects reality. Perhaps I did not find the words,
but for me, it sounds like a morale lesson: « If you do not maintain your
package well, the QA team will take it from your hands and it will be your
fault ».

How many examples of packages that were forcibly orphaned by the QA team can you cite ?

I think that most packages are orphaned when they are already abandonned by
their maintainer.  So what is your message ?  That the maintainer should
orphan or request the removal himself before the packages becomes a nuisance
to the release process ?  This can be written without mentionning the QA team
in a way presents them as making judgements. See what Google finds when using
the same structure of sentence:

http://www.google.com/search?q="lack+of"+"is+ground+for";

This is just one example, but as I already wrote in my comment, I think that
you need proofreading from the teams you are citing in your patch, to improve
it. Note that nobody in this bug log has yet wrote black on white that this
patch is good and must be applied as is.

This is probably the last comment I send. For the moment you got one negative
appreciation, and zero positive appreciation. Please focus on gathering
positive appreciations, instead of sending your buddies explaining that the
person giving the negative appreciation is wrong. Because even if my negative
comments were wrong, you still have zero positive comments.

Cheers,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan