Re: Debian Math Team
Am Tue, Nov 02, 2021 at 08:04:40AM +0100 schrieb Ole Streicher:
> I'd really disagree here. We should avoid a fragmentation of the policy
> without a really good reason. This makes it difficult for people to step
> in, as they have to learn all the small differences in the team
> policy. And it is hard to find them in the full text.
I agree that it would be great to settle with some common policy and a
minimum set of necessary deviations like Salsa repository and Maintainer
field and whatever. Unfortunately I'm not sure that Debian Science
policy is written in a way that this is easily possible. So we should
probably work on this (and than adapt not only Debian Mathematics policy
but also Debian Med and others).
> Instead, I would suggest to keep (and improve) the Science Team policy,
> and then to have a *tiny* Math team policy, which could just be a
> 5..10-liner, like
>
> | We inherit the Science Team policy, except:
> | * The maintainer field should be set to
> | "Debian Math Team <team+math@tracker.debian.org>".
> | * The VCS location is in the Salsa namespace
> | https://salsa.debian.org/math-team/
>
> Having many nearly-identical policies for relatively small teams
> otherwise creates problems in consistency, and I am afraid that useful
> changes are not always "upstreamed" to the science umbrella otherwise.
>
> I would also suggest (also for the science team policy) that a package
> under team maintainance *must* be git version controlled and under the
> team's namespace.
I'm a fan of clearly outspoken must. :-)
I'm guilty for a couple of "team-hijacks" in the past and besides one single
case where an outsider told me that I'm not permitted to do this (which is
technically correct) this was good for the packages and for the users of the
packages.
> I would (again, also for science team) not put the metapackages into the
> policy, as the policy should remain rather stable, but the metapackages
> are ongoing work.
Amen. ;-)
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: