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

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

Hi Luk,

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 07:29, Luk Claes<luk@debian.org> wrote:
> Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> 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).
> 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.

Well, I think something changes. Currently main MIA team activity is
in identifying MIA maintainers, and act upon their replies or the lack
of any reply. With this proposal, that part is completely removed and
so few things are left.

>> - 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
> MIA Team.
>> - 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.

The proposal merge the two activities, automatically identifying
inactive maintainers by a "time rule" (instead of a mia team member
actively checks and queries the perspective mia maintainer) and then
removing from the project.

>> - 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.

While I can see it can be still has its space for non-DDs (but it's
*much* more difficult our work for them) I don't see if it's still
worth have it once this proposal is implemented.

>>> 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.
> 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).

but what is the point in proactively checks DDs if after <time decided
by DAM> they are removed from the project? we can simply wait for that
time to pass, or am I missing something?

also note that non-DDs checks are far more difficult to be performed
than for DDs, where we have plenty of data sources to check if they're
active or not. Keeping the infrastructure only of this
"hard"/rare/less-important (for the project) cases seems overkill to

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

Reply to: