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

Re: Please update the DSA delegation


On Thu Dec 05, 2013 at 11:45:22 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 05/12/13 at 10:53 +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > Hi, 
> > 
> > On Wed Dec 04, 2013 at 17:45:22 +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > 3) I was a bit surprised to see Martin's announcement that Hector
> > > was now a member of DSA, and his request to update the DSA delegation.
> > 
> > I don't understand that. Hector has been doing a good amount of work as
> > part of the DSA team. After he has been a trainee for half a year, I
> > spoke with the other members (yes, that was done privatly, i need to
> > admit) if they also think that he should become a full member. I waited
> > until I heared back from all other members.
> > 
> > > The usual process is that the appointement of delegates is usually
> > > discussed between the DPL and the team. Of course, for well-functioning
> > > teams that propose a new delegate who already went through a training
> > > process, that discussion is rather likely to be short. But that's not a
> > > valid reason to suppress it completely and make it sound like a
> > > public demand that the DPL does the required paperwork (I'm sure that
> > > it was not Martin's intent, but it's still worth clarifying, I think).
> > 
> > My intent was to be as open as possible in the decission we have taken. 
> > As Joerg wrote, I think uncontroversial changes to functional teams have
> > never been a problem for an update of a DPL delegation.
> > 
> > Is the DSA team a non-functional team?
> I wouldn't say that. I think that the general opinion inside the project
> is that it's functioning quite well, well, or very well, depending on
> who you ask.
> However, there has recently been a number of events where there seem to
> have been communication problems between DSA and the rest of project
> (service developers not engaging with DSA early during the design
> process; service developers engaging with DSA late, and then having
> difficult conversations; failed contact between service maintainers and
> DSA about service moves, ...). And as a result, several people gave
> up on hosting services they maintain inside Debian infrastructure.
> I think that it's important for Debian to provide an environment for
> experimenting ideas on infrastructure, designing new services, etc.
> Ideally, I think that this should happen on Debian infrastructure
> managed by DSA, because (1) it facilitates collaborative service
> maintenance; (2) it's better when people focus on what they are doing
> best, and we don't have a infinite supply of expert sysadmins.
> So I'm trying to see if something can be done to improve the current
> status.

I am going to write down the minimal service infrastructure requirements
that DSA have and i will publish it here on the list. Maybe that helps
all of the project when discussing about new services with DSA.

I also encourage to project (or the corresponding service owners) to
help us having a census about services. I think we should do that on
debian-services-admin@lists.debian.org, a mailing list which was created
years ago for exactly that purpose (to have one single contact point for
both DSA and 'service owners').

 Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel@debian.org>    Debian System Administrator
 Debian & GNU/Linux Developer                       Debian Listmaster
 http://about.me/zobel                               Debian Webmaster
 GPG Fingerprint:  6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D  BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B 

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: