[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 04:21:37PM +0200, Sandro Tosi wrote:
> >> - 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.

Just my 0.02€ on this. I think it is still totally worth (which is of
course a totally differ topic than saying that the current MIA team
has enough manpower for that). Lucas Nussbaum (Cc-ed) showed me some
interesting numbers about how many packages in the Debian archive are
currently maintained by non-DD-maintainers. They are quite a lot in
fact, and not only due to DM.

With that slices of the archive increasing, the reasons which brought
us to have MIA for DDs apply more and more to non-DD-maintainers.

> > 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?

I agree with you on this: I don't see the point in investing MIA
energy in DDs when this proposal will be implemented.

Still, the topic of packages de facto unmaintained by otherwise active
DDs (e.g. people that vote but don't fix/respond to RC bugs) remains a
big one. However, it is a totally orthogonal problem to MIA already.

> 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
> me.

See above: I don't think it is in any way less important and is likely
to become more and more important in the future.


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: