Re: Questions for all candidates
* Raphael Hertzog <email@example.com> [2003-02-21 00:48]:
> 1. master.debian.org is still running potato. What do you think about
> that ?
> [ ] The debian admins should be blamed
> [ ] They must have good reasons to not have upgraded
> [ ] Nothing, i have to ask some explanations first
> [ ] What's the problem exactly ?
I think this question is a bit unfair because you presume that
everyone thinks it's a requirement for master to have woody. I seem
to recall that you need woody for the PTS, but you cannot expect DPL
candidates to expect everything. Also, I cannot answer the question
because I don't know why master has not been updated yet. There might
be good reasons, or there might not be.
> 3. We'd better release :
> [ ] twice a year
> [ ] once a year
> [ ] every two years
> [ ] always, we just throw stable away and keep a slightly modified
> testing as official stable
We don't have enough information yet to answer this question properly.
We really have to do a proper survey to find out what our users want.
I think many users would like to see Debian release twice a year
(desktop users) while others will want a release cycle of two years
(server usage). However, this might be true or it might be totally
bogus. I don't know since we haven't asked our users. If it's true,
however, that some want frequent and other want slow releases, we have
to find a way to accomodate both.
> 4. The DAM is :
> [x] a critical part of our infrastructure
> [x] guilty of not rejecting people when they deserve to be
I don't know if "guilty" is the right word. Some of the people who
would probably have been rejected in the past have used the time to
improve. So while you can see the DAM's behavior as giving those
people a chance to improve, you can certainly also see him as guilty
for not rejecting them straight away. It's up to you to decide how to
> [x] guilty of doing everything behind the back leaving everyone
> in the ignorance
> [x] elmo, a cool guy when you know how to discuss with him
> 5. The ftpmasters are :
> [x] a good team, other teams should take them as model
> [ ] annoying guys who ask you to clarify a license even when it's
> quite clear already
> [ ] busy guys who take too long to add a package in the archive
They are actually approving NEW packages very regularly and quickly.
Asking for clarification of licenses is only done when it's necessary.
And it's not the ftpmastes fault that licenses that appear to be
"quite clear already" are not... it's the legal system.
> [ ] too powerful, refusing to add some packages when
> the license was ok (example: apt-i18n a few months ago) is a
I agree with the ftpmaster's decision in this case. In general, it
_might_ certainly be a problem. However, that's why we trust our
ftpmasters (and the security team, debian admin, etc) to do the right