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

Re: pythonX.Y maintenance team

On Thursday, April 12, 2012 11:25:07 AM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2012 at 10:36:58AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > Allow me be blunt then: do we have volunteers to maintain the pythonX.Y
> > packages? Can those volunteers manifest themselves on this list?
> So, ~10 days later this call, we've two volunteers: Sandro and Barry. If
> no one else show up, I'll relay the information to the tech-ctte bug log
> mentioning that, if they want to have an explicit team in their ballot,
> the two of them volunteered.
> Anyone else?

I'm not volunteering because I don't think I'm qualified.

> Also, it would be appropriate to know what participants to this list
> (including the volunteers) think of such a potential maintenance team
> for pythonX.Y. Given the history of the underlying conflict, I would
> prefer to receive comments about that publicly.  But I do understand it
> might be socially awkward to do so for those who would prefer a
> different team. So if you *really* don't feel like commenting publicly,
> feel free to do so in private mail to me. I'll then simply anonymize and
> aggregate the feedback, if any. (If you've better options on how to
> solicit comments, I'm all ears as well.)

I will be direct.

doko and morph do not get along with each other.  This has been true (IIRC) 
since before I started participating in Debian.  There is no reasonable basis 
for believing this is going to change.  I don't know who's fault it is (and I 
don't care - don't bother to engage me in a discussion on the topic).  I have 
seen both of them have enough socially unpleasant interactions with other 
people that I suspect there is blame enough to go around.

I don't think that the *-defaults packages and the interpreter packages 
fundamentally require the same maintainer, but I expect it to be problematic 
to have different teams maintain them if each team has the other as a member as 
they are both strong personalities.

So far, the solicitation has been for co-maintainers with morph.  I think it 
would only be fair to make a similar call for co-maintainers with doko.  
Despite the language in the original tech ctte bug, I don't think morph and 
doko on the same team is a realistic possibility.

I agree with the goal of the bug.  I think it's important to have multiple 
maintainers on packages as important as the python interpreter packages.  I'm 
glad I'm not the one that has to figure out how to manage that.

Scott K

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: