On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:44:47PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I think that if you want to change the NMU procedures described in
> > > dev-ref, you should at least discuss the proposals in a similar forum
> > > than the one where the current recommendations were discussed, i.e
> > > debian-devel@ or debian-project@.
> > >
> > For example, in
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2006/07/msg00231.html ?
>
> The NMU policy implemented in dev-ref was discussed on -devel@ in 2008
I guess Neil actually meant
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2011/03/msg00016.html> ,
cited at the beginning of this bug report. Quoting from there:
> 0-day NMU policy
> ----------------
> For some time now, we have had a perpetual 0-day NMU policy, and some
> discussion [LDO:0day] was had a while ago. We feel that this has worked
> well for the past five years, and so will be submitting a bug against
> dev-ref to make this official.
which is a very clear quote and has been circulated via d-d-a.
I've noted that you question the authority of the Release Team authority
to decide on this, which is one thing (see below about that).
Nonetheless nobody can argue that the RT didn't bring this topic
up---with more than 1 month of advance---to the most appropriate place,
enabling everyone to comment. (Reviewing the -devel thread you can find
one comment about it. It is by Gregor, has been posted shortly after a
further "ping" by Mehdi on this topic, and it's a positive one. [1])
So, looking from the outside, I would be more than ready to consider
this change consensual among d-d-a readers. That of course does not
mean that it is consensual among devref editors, although I would expect
them to follow consensus.
Anyhow, to avoid doubts and the unpleasant sensation of "sneaky-ness" in
ratifying such an important policy, I suggest to proceed as follows:
- Improve the wording, given that it has been perceived as ambiguous by
various readers.
I personally agree that it would be good to clarify that maintainers
are not forced to ping bug logs every 7 weeks (although I believe that
at least one message saying "I'm on it" it's at the very least a wise
thing to do to avoid duplication of efforts). The wording might for
instance mention that 0-day NMU-ers should do a best effort to check
out by other means if the maintainer is working on it even if the
buglog is silent, e.g.: by looking at the VCS. Such a precaution
sounds reasonable for 0-day NMUs and at the same time won't add much
of a burden upon the NMU-ers; IME I often looked at the VCS anyhow, to
check if a patch was already available.
Maybe those who have found the wording ambiguous can help out with a
first draft of that?
- See how it goes on this bug log with the new text
- Apply the change (hoping that by then it would be more consensual)
- Mention the new text in the next release team mail, with reference to
this bug log. That way if people that feel strongly about this have
missed the first mention, they could bite.
/me puts on his formalities hat
Regarding the authoritativeness of the Release Team for deciding on
this, I'm sorry but I have no solid formal ground to rule on that. (I've
been planning to discuss with RT on how to clarify their delegation, but
it's still in the TODO pipe.) So, if anyone feels strongly about that,
this should probably go to the tech-ctte.
At the same time, it's undeniable that for the past 5 years or more,
people have accepted NMU guidelines coming from the RT. So at least by
folklore people don't seem to have a problem with RT authority on
this. I could look more into this if you, or anyone else want me to
(e.g. by digging archives trying to rebuild RT delegation history), but
I do hope we can solve this in ways where the time of everybody is
better spent than that.
/me takes off the formalities hat
Cheers.
[1] I'm adding both of them to Cc:, in case I've misunderstood them
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Capossela .......| ..: |.......... -- C. Adams
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature