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

Re: Question for all candidates: handle debian-admin more openly



On Thu, Mar 09, 2006 at 07:31:49AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> Bill Allombert wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 10:56:57PM +0100, Martin Zobel-Helas wrote:
> > > Now my question:
> > > 
> > > 1.) Do you think it would be a good idea to handle debian-admin more
> > >     openly? 
> > >     
> > > 2.) Would you encourage debian-admin to do so? If yes, how?
> > > 
> > > 3.) Do you think more DSA are needed?
> > 
> > I would like to experiment with "DSA assistants". The idea is that some
> > Debian machines could not need special priviledge to operate and are not
> > critical to operation, so they could be operated by "DSA assistants"
> > which would have much less priviledges. This could reduce the work on
> > the DSA and allow Debian to operate more machines, and "DSA assistants"
> > could eventually became full DSA once they gather the trust of the DSA
> > team. This could also increase transparency as a side effect.
> 
> You mean, like the site-admin who maintains the host already?
> (i.e. Matt for paer, merulo, gluck; wiggy for klecker; etc.?)

No, this is something different.

> > Alioth is a debian.org machine with a separate set of admin, so there is
> > a precedent.
> 
> No.  Alioth is not DSA maintained, that's totally different setup.

Sorry I was very inaccurate. What I wanted to say was that there is a
precedent for Debian-official machines to not be administered by the 
DSA team.

> > Example of non-priviledged services include secondary web services and
> > developers accessible port machines with separate accounts.  As an
> > aside, I think there should be more developers-accessible port machines.
> 
> Why?

Having two developers-accessible port machines for a platform means
more total CPU time (important for the slower ports) and
that we still have one usable when the other is down. 

> For which ports?

By my reckoning the following port machine are available 
with chroots:

amd64: pergolesi
alpha: escher
arm: leisner
hppa: paer
i386: gluck (+pergolesi)
ia64: merulo
m68k: crest
mips: casals
mipsel: vaughan
powerpc: bruckner voltaire 
s390: raptor
sparc: 

(db.debian.org do not list gluck as having chroot, and list vore as
a sparc port machine. However vore seems to be down currently.
pergolesi has both amd64 chroot and i386 chroot.)

Only i386 and powerpc have two port machines. 

Also Joey, this was not intended as a critic of the work of the DSA
team. This is a small team and there is some many hour in the day,
but you manage to be very responsive to request to install packages,
update chroots, etc. I really have a lot of gratitude for all you do.

But my reasoning is that we could add more machine without increasing 
the load on the DSA team.

Cheers,
-- 
Bill. <ballombe@debian.org>

Imagine a large red swirl here. 

Attachment: pgpR5pp1KFZ4Y.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: