On Fri, Mar 12, 2004 at 05:03:56PM +0000, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
> * Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> [2004-03-12 11:00]:
> > So, given that you don't think "maintainers who neglect their duties
> > and don't follow documented procedures" should "be treated the same
> > as maintainers who leave the project properly", how do you propose
> > to treat them?
> [...]
> > ...but you do want to make sure they're not retired "with full honors",
> > right?
>
> Oh, they are retired with full honours. Once we get around to
> creating a web site listing and thanking emeritus developers, I won't
> propose splitting it into "good people" who left the project properly
> and "bad people" who didn't. I honour everyone for their
> contribution, and I have no idea where you get the idea from that this
> is not the case.
Well, I have to admit -- I got it from your own statements on the
subject. Earlier in this thread[1], we had the following exchange:
> * Branden Robinson <branden@debian.org> [2004-03-04 21:21]:
> > People who have simply become inactive should be treated as much
> > like those who have resigned as possible. We should thank them for
> > their efforts, put them on the emeritus keyring, and find new
> > maintainers for their packages.
>
> I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their packages,
> inform the keyring maintainer that they are leaving the project [1])
> should not be treated the same as maintainers who leave the project
> properly.
[back to the present]
> I have only talked about the re-admission of people to the project.
Okay. When I was talking about something *other* than re-admission of
people to the project, you were quick to disagree with me.
Significantly, the above exchange I quoted constituted your entire
message, aside from a footnote to the Developer's Reference. How on
earth was I to grasp any other context for your words?
[snip]
> I don't see how this position is so different from the one you
> described later, when you said "On the gripping hand, I believe any
> procedure permitting an emeritus developer back into the project
> should evaluate the circumstances surrounding their departure. [...]
> We can make those questions a little more pointed and rigorous for the
> idlers, if need be." Obviously you suggest treating them differently,
> too?
Sure -- which is why I don't understand where your "I disagree with
this" came from.
> > action ("We should thank them for their efforts, put them on the
> > emeritus keyring, and find new maintainers for their packages.") do you
>
> I do that and I never said otherwise.
Well, actually, you said:
> I disagree with this. I think that maintainers who neglect their
> duties and don't follow documented procedures (orphan their packages,
> inform the keyring maintainer that they are leaving the project [1])
> should not be treated the same as maintainers who leave the project
> properly.
...in Message-id: <[🔎] 20040305024923.GA19098@deprecation.cyrius.com>[1]
> > By the way, I didn't imply you'd threaten people with being barred from
> > re-admission. What I said was:
> [...]
>
> And before that paragraph, you said "I don't think you're going to
> persuade more people to avoid silently "idling out" by threatening
> some sort of denigrated status."
Yes. I don't know else I'm supposed to interpret your reply of "I
disagree with this." to my statement of "People who have simply become
inactive should be treated as much like those who have resigned as
possible.".
> > > (Anyway, I perform this work with my QA hat and not with my DPL
> > > hat, so it's not really relevant to the discussion;
> >
> > Eh? It is if you ask the DAMs to retire the developer without any
> > request on his or her part. Have you ever done so?
>
> As DPL, no. As QA person, I helped the DAM evaluate his listing of
> inactive people before he performed the MIA ping.
>
> I have a question to you. Do you think the MIA ping the DAM performed
> was a good or bad idea? (i.e. looking for inactive people, asking
> them if they are still active and if not retiring their accounts in
> order to minimize stale accounts and maximize security).
I think it's a good idea, and I recall applauding you on the subject
at DebConf 3. Last November's security breach of our systems via a
developer account underscores the importance of vigilance in this area.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2004/debian-vote-200403/msg00201.html
--
G. Branden Robinson |
Debian GNU/Linux | Yeah, that's what Jesus would do.
branden@debian.org | Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature