Hi, 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'). Cheers, Martin -- 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