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

Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal

Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> writes:
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2007, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
>>> 	* multiple Debian developers have requested the individual's
>>> 	  removal for non-spurious reasons; eg, due to problematic
>>> 	  uploads, unfixed bugs, or being unreasonably difficult to
>>> 	  work with.
>> This part is broken and shouldn't end up in a final proposal. We need to
>> decide on actual rules, otherwise this can lead to endless flamewars.
> We take non-binary decisions every day (MIA, hijack, etc.). This is just
> one more of those.  Usually it's pretty clear when someone isn't up to the
> task.

We have a very hard time to kick DDs out - we don't do a binary decision
there, we do have a defined procedure and we still come out with a
flamewar. I would like to do better in this. "unreasonable difficult to
work with" basically means that any group of DDs can come over and say
"Eh, we don't like that guy" and the person should be kicked out ... or
not? Who decides, actually? The whole keyring team? Will there be a
vote? Is it enough if 50% of the people who voted are in favour of
kicking someone out, or is it 50% of all people with voting rights? Do
we have a period in which voting should happen? These are all things
that should be decided *before* actually needing them, because an
actual use-case will always make the discussion about a procedure

>>> 5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the
>>>    Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that keyring
>>>    provided:
>> [...] 
>> I'm not too happy with this part. My idea was always to allow people
>> upload rights for individual packages that have been checked once by a
>> full DD - and even that doesn't make me happy.
> [...]
>> Anyway, something more constructive: I think that from a QA point of
>> view, allowing DMs to only upload packages that were once checked by
>> some trustworthy person is a lot better than your proposal.
> I agree with you in the principle (and the first time this idea cropped
> up, I understood it that way). However this doesn't scale very well... in
> any big team, the usual DD maintainers should be able to grant upload
> rights fairly easily to DM. If they have to make a new request each time
> that they decide that a DM can have uploads rights on a new package, it's
> going to be somewhat painful.

Yes. It should be. Granting permissions on an archive used by a few
thousand people *should be painful*, as it needs consideration.

> One way to get out of this is to mark those new packages as maintained by
> a new team "debian-sponsorship@lists.debian.org" and to add the maintainer
> in the Maintainer field only later once we trust him enough for that.
> Would that be acceptable for you?

No. You know enough to German to understand what "*T*oll *E*in *A*nderer
*M*acht's" [1] means. It's like the QA team as Maintainer - Noone cares
until something breaks horribly.


[1]  For those of you not speaking german [2]: "Team" can be expanded to
     something like "Yay, someone else does the work" in german

[2]  You do know that the g3rman cabal will make that mandatory soon,
BOFH #236:
Fanout dropping voltage too much, try cutting some of those little

Attachment: pgp6h73x4FRnd.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: