Re: Re-thinking Debian membership - take #1: inactivity - status update
Sandro Tosi wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2009 at 11:56, Stefano Zacchiroli<email@example.com> 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).
DAM. Well, when DAM would decide too restrictive, one could try to
convince them to do otherwise or even overrule them.
> - what's your ETA for this proposal to be operative?
That's up to DAM.
> - what about non-DDs that are currently tracked in MIA database, along with DDs?
Nothing changes regarding MIA.
> - what will happen to the packages of DDs deactivated by this proposal?
Like with the WAT runs, there will very probably be a feedback to the
> - 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?
You are mixing WAT and MIA apparently. The current proposal may replace
the DAM's WAT runs AFAICS, it does *not* affect MIA except from the
feedback generated after deactivation of DDs.
> - 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.)
There is no reason at all to change processing.
>> 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  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
> 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.
You seem to misunderstand the proposal AFAICS. The MIA Team would still
be operative for non DDs in general and for DDs in a proactive way (aka
during the inactivity period).