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

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

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 07:29:20AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote:
> > some questions I still see without a clear answer:

ACK on most answers from Luk, some more comments on some of them

> > - what about non-DDs that are currently tracked in MIA database,
> >   along with DDs?
> Nothing changes regarding MIA.

Yes and no. My hope is that the implementation of this proposal would
significantly reduce the workload of MIA, letting that team work only
on non-DD maintainers.

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

I consider this totally orthogonal to the proposal per se and hence I,
on purpose, avoided to raise the issue in the thread. See below.

> Like with the WAT runs, there will very probably be a feedback to
> the MIA Team.

Uhm, I would prefer having feedback from that to QA directly. MIA is
needed to discover missing-in-action people. With the implementation
of this proposal we will know, among DD ranks, who is MIA without
needing to chasing it any more. Hence the notification can, for this
specific case, bypass MIA. But sure, downstream the effects should be
the same as for packages of non-DD maintainers discovered to be MIA.

What to do with such notification is a (not new) topic for -qa, not

> > - 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.

ACK. Again, I don't see MIA "dying" due to this proposal, I only see
it re-focusing his work on non-DD maintainers.

> > - 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.

Still, the question of what should be done in the interim for DD
maintainers while the proposal actually gets implemented is a good
one. Here we have a trade-off: on one hand you don't want to invest a
lot of time in accounts that will be spotted more easily at the first
run of this proposal; on the other hand, if the proposal gets time to
get implemented (hey, here we're talking, but the burden of putting it
up to speed has been pushed to somebody else!) you don't want to loose
"MIA-chasing" abilities.

I don't have _the_ answer for that. What I can do, if you are
interested, is to hand over the list of potentially disabled DDs to
pinpoint your MIA queries at them and avoid/focus MIA activities

> > 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.

/me rolls eyes    o_O

It is true that I did not contact the MIA team in the first place; I
do apologize for that, but at my defense I stress that I did not see,
as I do not see now, this proposal dismantling MIA. Nevertheless,
after my first message to -project some weeks ago you, as the only
active MIA team member AFAIK, contacted me on IRC. At the end of that
brief chat, my understanding was that we agreed upon seeing how the
proposal was going to be received on -project.  I still do not see
which "problem" this proposal causes to MIA and MIA team.


Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: