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

On the "Debian Maintainers" GR


I haven't said anything in the DM threads yet because I still don't
know which actual problem the introduction of DMs is trying to solve.

IMHO the current process with sponsors reviewing and uploading
packages has proven to work nicely, i.e. the amount of broken packages
uploaded is not too high. Most of the perceived problems with this
process stem from the fact that most of the packages offered on
debian-mentors or #debian-mentors are initially crap and need lots of
review cycles. Once people produce good packages asking the last
sponsor for another upload should work. (And at that point NM will be
a breeze.)

Particularly I don't like the fact that the "initial policy for an
individual to be included in the keyring" does not include any check
of any technical or non-technical skills besides having a gpg key and
be able to tick 3 checkboxes. I fear this will lead to people
blacklisting "DM" packages because they don't want low-quality
packages on their machines.

At the same time, the rest of the GR text is micro-managing every
other detail of the process in a way that doesn't leave much room for
practical implementation decisions.

It appears to me that the DM concept as sketched in the GR is mainly
meant to let NMs upload earlier, i.e. it tries to fix the fact that
front-desk or DAM approval take too long. I think the fix for that is
just to find someone besides Joerg to also read the AM reports. DMs as
in the GR are a workaround, not a solution.

On a sidenote, I'm still wondering why front-desk (and afaict the
DAMs) were never asked about their opinion while/after the GR was
drafted. I had some chats with Anthony on IRC on the topic, but that
was shortly after Debconf 6 (there was a related BoF), nothing in the
past months.

Christoph, not with the front-desk hat on, but having it within reach.

PS: I voted "-1".
cb@df7cb.de | http://www.df7cb.de/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: