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

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

On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56, Stefano Zacchiroli<zack@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:03:41PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>> This proposal received a lot of interest back then, but in the end
>> went nowhere. I think we should resurrect it and put into use at
>> least some of its parts. In particular, the part about "expiration
>> of DD rights" received only minor criticisms; criticisms which I've
>> tried to address.
> Here is a status update.
> My reading of the discussion which followed the initial proposal is
> that we have consensus on the general idea; yet, there are small
> divergences on some details (e.g., 1 year vs 2 year, when/if
> notifying, ...).

some questions I still see without a clear answer:

- who will decide the above (and below) details? are they left to the
implementors? I believe the proposal should contains some sort of
"lower limits" (what if they decide 1 month of inactivity is enough?
ok it's purely hypotetical, but it still applies).

- what's your ETA for this proposal to be operative?

- what about non-DDs that are currently tracked in MIA database, along with DDs?

- what will happen to the packages of DDs deactivated by this proposal?

- will the MIA team be dismantled? who's in charge of this? will you
take care of removing all the traces of MIA team from Debian
documentations (like wiki, devref, etc) or from wherever is
referenced? (of course, if we decide to remove it and not "archive")
or edit them, where needed?

- what to do about the current (yet unanswered) queries we've
received? should we reply "please wait for <this> to be approved"?
should we fulfill? when should we stop operations? (I'm personally not
that motivated to work on something that's dying.)

> Since, AFAIR, DAM has not commented in the thread, in the last days I
> contacted a DAM representative (Joerg Jaspert) in private to seek
> comments on the idea. The bottom line is that DAM is fine with the
> proposed changes and is willing to replace (manual) WAT runs [2] with
> an automatic mechanism like the one we discussed.  I also pinged DSA,
> which reasonably considers this discussion none of its business and
> will happily implement whatever the project and DAM decide on the
> matter.

I do believe it would have been nice if you contacted (not saying
discuss with) the MIA team about this proposal (since the team main
activities are under discussion here), either before or after your
made it public.

> According to constitution and delegation, DAM is already fully
> empowered to implement the proposed changes and also has the freedom
> to decide upon the details. Hence, I personally don't think we need a
> vote on this issue. Once ready, DAM can announce the change via the
> usual channels, possibly referencing the thread at [1] as evidence of
> discussion of the issue within the project.
> Of course, if some of us is in utter disagreement with the proposal
> (or with the forthcoming implementation), she has the usual right to
> call for a vote on a more specific proposal. Since I'm happy with the
> current/forthcoming state of affairs, I will not do that.

ok, I'm kinda agnostic about it, so I just sit and wait to see what will happen.

Sandro Tosi (aka morph, morpheus, matrixhasu)
My website: http://matrixhasu.altervista.org/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi

Reply to: