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

Re: Question to all candidates: DPL's role in important package maintenance

On Thu, Apr 01, 2010 at 06:47:53AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> Agreed, but would you agree that it is a core part of the role of the 
> DPL/2IC, or indeed any mediator, to provide at least basic status and 
> progress info to the project as a whole?

Yes, absolutely.  Beside this specific case---which I'm pretty sure
everyone in the project was aware of---we should not assume that the DPL
is aware of all problems like this. The ideal course of actions IMO
should be something like: either proactively or pinged by someone the
DPL is made aware of a problem like this one, he/she tries a mediation
informing the project of the effort, keeps the project posted for a
while, if that fails we fallback to tech-ctte.

I agree with Russ comments on the matter, I think our (as a project)
main responsibility in this specific case has been letting the issue be
delayed this far. I believe that some of the year-old rants on -devel
would have been much more useful if, instead of posting there, people
would have opened an issue to the tech-ctte.

> What we've been seeing with this issue is that there has been complete 
> silence for over three months. I think that a lot of the (heated) public 
> discussion could have avoided if some progress/status info would have been 
> provided at regular intervals. In fact, I think that a lot of the public 
> discussion was as direct result of the total lack of such information.
> What are the thoughts of candidates on that?

I completely agree with your analysis on this.

Several of the posts I've seen on -devel were clearly caused by the
frustration of the involved people. Knowing that something was going on
and, even better, being able to *see* what was going on (as it is right
now the case with the -ctte bug log) would have saved quite same flame,

> Also, it has been claimed "we cannot provide any information because 
> discussions are in private" [1]. Do candidates agree to that, or do they 
> think that a DPL should make clear to parties in advance that the project 
> will be kept informed of status and progress (but of course not of 
> specifics).
> [1] References:
> - http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/12/msg00078.html (+ following)

My comment is in that very same thread already [2] (it is the latter of
your options).


[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2009/12/msg00096.html

Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: