[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity

On 23/07/09 at 01:10 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:57:07AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > MIA is also about detecting packages that are de-facto orphaned, not
> > just about developers. Actually, I think that it's more important
> > that we work on detecting packages that are badly maintained, rather
> > than on detecting inactive maintainers. Inactive maintainers do not
> > make harm by definition.
> The two are completely orthogonal. Also, I disagree that inactive
> maintainer do no harm; they do harm if you think they are still
> feeling responsible for a package while they are not. That's why we
> had MIA in the first place. (Beside the obvious security risks of
> having their accounts around ..., which was the reason to propose
> stuff like WAT in the first place.)

Sure, I meant that they do not harm the archive since they do not upload

> Additionally, I think that automatic detection of inactive DDs can
> *help* QA: for instance, the removal of such account can trigger a
> notification to the QA team which can then directly proceed to orphan
> all packages of the just deactivated account. That's another topic not
> related to the proposal, but IMO shows that the two practices are not
> at stake with each other.

I'm not sure if this is the correct approach to that problem: It doesn't
take in account maintainers that are not DDs, and that can also become
MIA. But it could be used in addition to other approaches.
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |

Reply to: