[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 04:37:54PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> 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
> etc).
> So, while removing the "easiest" part (checking DDs) we are left with
> the most difficult and time-consuming part.

Sure, but it seems an advantage nevertheless to me: we de facto ease
remove part of the task. Also, I fail to understand how things were
different with WAT runs. The relations of that with MIA seem identical
to me to the relations of the new proposal to MIA.

> 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.

I consider it totally appropriate. Probably -private would not be
enough though, and also some "private QA" channel would need to be
triggered. How it was for MIA? I presume we can use the same channel.

> > 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)).

Understood. This proposal is no solution for that and I don't see an
easy one. Still, given the main utility of MIA has always been to
discover unmaintained *packages* by the main of MIA *developers*, I
feel like we still need that. How to improve it is a, recurrent,
totally different topic.

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

> > 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'
> accordingly.

OK. I'll contact you in private for further development on this side
of the issue.

> > 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.

My bad then, I could have understood that too. Sorry for the
misunderstanding, I hope things are clear(er) now.


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: