Re: The Debian Maintainers GR
On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog (hertzog@debian.org) [070728 14:57]:
> > On Sat, 28 Jul 2007, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > Oh crap. Why invent new comittees in the first place? And BTW, why don't
> > > speak with DAM/FD/NM-committee first, before starting new things?
> > > Rewirting from scratch is mostly not a good idea.
> >
> > Why are you setting up a buildd network not handled by the buildd admins
> > and by DSA ? (No need to reply, it's just to show you the parallel)
>
> I didn't knew up to now that we need a committee to run a buildd, and
> that the committee of the buildds I maintain negotiates with the
> committee of the buildds for unstable/main+contrib.
s/committee/team/ s/negotiate/cooperate/ and you'll see it doesn't sound
so strange.
> And, BTW, the buildd admins of the experimental buildds are in touch
> with the buildd admins of the unstable buildds - and I discussed that
> matter with Ryan and James before setting up the first buildds. Now you
> might see the difference: Because in the buildd case, it makes sense to
> distribute the load on more shoulders (and btw, it doesn't buy real
> advantages to force the same people handling unstable to also care about
> experimental).
Agreed it makes sense to distribute the load on more shoulders. It doesn't
make sense to do it on non .d.o machines and it doesn't make sense to have
two wanna-build instances.
In those two aspects, you're circumventing the official Debian
infrastructure...
> However, in the DM case, you didn't speak first with the people knowing
> about the issues, but tried a rewrite from scratch.
Historically, the project was only a project of an ftpmaster (Anthony).
Once he wanted to deploy it, there has been some internal objections
from another ftpmaster.
Since ftpmasters couldn't take a decision alone, Anthony decided to ask
the project approval with this GR.
Anthony publically spoke of his project at several points in time and all
the people involved in NM sure had noticed the discussions on
debian-project. I would have like some more participation from them
but the few messages I've seen involve skepticism and not a willingness to
integrate the good stuff in NM.
There has been at least two alternative GR proposals but none got
seconded, and the NM people could have drafted an alternative proposal
to ask the project to implement something more sensible in their opinion.
None of this happened, you can't blame Anthony for that.
I'm sorry if you feel that the current vote is sub-optimal, but you should
have gotten involved earlier. In the mean time, this vote involves only
acceptance of the 'principle', the real implementation can evolve and
possibly get integrated into NM (exactly like sponsorship got integrated
in NM after sponsorship got created).
> And, apart from any issue what you needed to discuss - I don't think the
> current proposal has a big enough usecase (please see what e.g. Russ has
> written) to warrant it risks. Joergs proposal seems better to me.
The 900 non-DD maintainers are not a big enough use case for you?
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: