Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation
Philipp Kern writes ("Re: Call for volunteers and GR draft: tag2upload key installation"):
> 2025-04-01: ansgar asks me to install dgit on fasolo to facilitate the
> integration. While complicated by the fact that fasolo is not upgraded to
> stable yet, it's installed the same morning (but not instantly).
Oh, that's interesting. I'm glad to hear that there is movement.
(If we had been consulted, I'm not sure we would have recommended the
approach you describe, but it's up to the ftp team how they would
like to organise it. For the avoidance of any doubt, I would love to
receive friendly enquiries about technical aspects, and would respond
as quickly and helpfully and constructively as possible.)
It's a shame that no-one replied to Sean's enquiries, isn't it?
If we got a firm public promise of completion within some reasonably
prompt timescale (weeks rather than months) I'm sure Sean will agree
that we should wait. (And keep our offer of technical support open.)
> Standing on the other side of the fence of another team that nearly
> avoided an escalation: Given the amount of tickets in the DSA queue, I
> understand the feeling that people think their wishes are not acted upon
> quickly enough by their fellow volunteers. Which feels like gatekeeping,
> but is also owed to some degree to the interests and time availability
> of a small set of people - where for various reasons the work is not
> easily shardable to the project.
I understand that people have different priorities. But there are
several problems with this angle:
Firstly, as I've pointed out, eight months is a very long time to let
this lie, particularly given that we agreed this approach as a
resolution to a dispute.
Secondly, we have serious communication problems. We've had a
obnoxious/obstructive messages, for one example; no update at all in
response to multiple enquiries, as an agreed date simply flew past,
for another.
Thirdly, it is fine with us if ftpmaster don't want to do the
complicated parts in their end of our 2024 agreement. That work is
something that only ftpmaster want, anyway. The key could be
installed very simply (basically, as proposed in our task delegation,
likely refined as Simon Josefsson suggests). What we are objecting to
is both (i) making it a hard blocker (ii) choosing not to do it.
In a do-ocracy you should get to do only one of these things. If you
don't implement the parts you care about, fine, they don't exist, but
everyone else should be able to make progress.
> A PR for dak would probably have gone a long way. I understand the
> complexities with that, but to be fair, that was basically the point
> ftp-master was making in response.
If ftpmaster don't want to do this work, it doesn't seem reasonable to
expect us to do it given that we don't think it's worthwhile.
The way we think it should be done is as described in the proposal
at the head of this thread. If we're to be asked to do it, we should
be entitled to do it our way.
Anyway, for obvious sociopolitical reasons our agreement last year
wasn't predicated on us submitting MRs to dak.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: