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

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

Hi Stefano,

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 09:21, Stefano Zacchiroli<zack@debian.org> wrote:
> 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
> below.
>> > - 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.

That is the much more time-consuming than checking DDs. for our fellow
DDs we have several data sources (mls posts, uploads, key usage) to
track them, while we don't have anything similar for non-DDs. So
several manual researches are needed (either on lists.d.o, google, etc

So, while removing the "easiest" part (checking DDs) we are left with
the most difficult and time-consuming part.

>> > - 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
> -project.

Ok, so there should be a communication of removed DDs, at least on
-private, so that DDs working on QA at least know it. if you/other
feel it unappropriate, please suggest some other form of communication
or ways to handle this. either in this proposal or at a later stage.

>> > - 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.

see above: this way our work is reduced in number, to focus on the
most annoying, difficult, quite frustrating and pointless (non-DDs are
not part of the project, in a strict sense (don't get me wrong here, I
know they are valuable contributors, but they can't vote, blablabla)).

But I also have to be honest and affirm that we receive much less
requests for non-DDs than for 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.
> 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
> elsewhere.

Of course it would be welcome: I'll cross check the current "TODO"
list marking as 'pending on the proposal to be implemented'

>> > 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,

Well, I might be the "most" active, not the only one.

> contacted me on IRC. At the end of that

Yes, I contacted you, and I was quite surprised by this sudden
proposal. Probably I should have made clear at that time that a
contact would have been welcome.

> brief chat, my understanding was that we agreed upon seeing how the
> proposal was going to be received on -project.

Yes, I wanted to see how's going (in fact I didn't reply to the
original thread), but since I think some points where still
unanswered, I took this update to ask them.

> I still do not see
> which "problem" this proposal causes to MIA and MIA team.

I think (I hope) I've explained above.

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

Reply to: