On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 12:58:22PM +0200, Andreas Schuldei wrote: > On Wed, Apr 27, 2005 at 07:02:12PM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote: > > Hi, > > > > So, firstly, congratulations on http://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html - > > it has made the processing of new packages a lot more transparent. > > > > Which has resulted in more and more packages being processed quicker, > > however it has also made apparent that you have difficulties when it > > comes to deciding on some packages. > > > > One process modification I would suggest is that rather than leaving > > packages in 'NEW queue limbo' if you are not able to reject or accept them > > after 2 months, you refer the package to the technical committee instead. > > I dont think adding an other detour to Yet Another Team is adding > any value at all. people *do* look at the problematic packages in > NEW and work on the issues involved. why would the technical > committee be any better then those people? If you have a lot of things on your todo list, it is easy to procrastinate when other things appear on it which seem easier. If you only have one thing though. > Those stalled packages pose serious non-technical problems. I > suggest to NOT form the "non-technical committee" but let the > ftp-master team try to solve the problem and trust them to call > for help if they need it ... or at least give them more time > untill you start restructuring. It isn't clear to me that the issue with those (we are talking about 5 packages at the moment) is or is not technical. What *is* clear is that the ftp-master team can not decide. I would like to see Debian's processes evolve to be somewhat similiar to the IETF's -- where there is a clearly defined flow of how a document progresses from draft to standard. Similiarly it would be nice if the Debian project decided to be more Morton-like, that is explicit acceptance or explicit rejection, rather than Linus-like (implied rejection) in its handling of things. To me, making the committment that a package is decided upon after X weeks (I'm suggesting 8), if there is no outcome pending it be referred to the technical committee would be a positive Morton-like way to go. Thanks, Anand -- `When any government, or any church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression no matter how holy the motives' -- Robert A Heinlein, "If this goes on --"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature