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. Cheers. -- 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