Re: Processed: Reopen
On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 08:09 +0300, Jari Aalto+mail.linux wrote:
> I'll a little busy and it seems that my message to Debian devel
> to oppose sudden closure of BTS RFPs never got through....
Well, try to send it again, if you think it's needed. I also got two
mails stopped or something in those days, when we were discussing this
WNPP closing stuff.
> I would wish people would be a little more open and understand that
> that putting more burden on the submitters is not a good thing. First of
> all the assumption why something isn't packaged in fixed time is
> not necessarily "nobody is interested". I can think many other
> possibilities.
>
> To me the RFPs are the least problem and I cannot understand why
> they are under fire. Is that they are easily closed? Is it that
> the submitter may not be there any more, so nobody much objects?
IMO, the reason for this is because it is a good pinging way.
> There are much bigger problems where the time should be put. Like for
> existing packages:
>
> - where 7 year old bugs hang in there and nothing is done.
That is a more sensitive branch, where WNPP team is not concerned
(obviously, not that we are aware of).
> - packages, whose maintainers have disappeared
> (nobody answers to queries, bugs, questions...)
> - the overall quality of how the bugs are generally handled
> (autmatization scripts to monitor and WARN that author
> XXX hasn't fixed bugs in package X, Y, Z, .... in
> within time YYYYY; months or years).
Most of that is being done by QA team, which Christoph is involved with.
It is not that I'm not concerned about it, it's just that is not a
matter of subject on this discussion.
> In my case, I'm interested in those bugs and this sudden closure of things
> where I had spent fair amount of time to track down correct email
> addresses, correct licenses, correct web pages - found or wrote good
> explanations is like diminishing the work of the RFP submitter.
>
> I may have time in the future to look into those more and perhaps package
> them, but I certainly have no time to "explain" to the system just for the
> sake of "requiring to keep the WMPP RFP open".
The latter paragraph may be, yes, correct. In the case of RFPs, not
always on ITPs.
> First of all, any such requirements must be put into the policy manual
> to make it explicit if it is the intention to:
>
> - close your submitted WNPP request in fixed time
> - you're required to dig deep and explain more if you
> want to keep the request open after XXX days.
That's some kind of strict in the sense that nothing about WNPP is
written on the Debian Policy.
> >From perspetive of this, the requirements put into the
> shoulders of the submitter:
>
> - discourages participation. Why should the submitter
> care to sent any RFPs, if they will be closed? He
> may have better time to do, so why try to help some
> system that does not need that kind of help?
Well, because of the very explained reasons: No more people is
interested on packaging. Or, there has not been progress in the
packaging made by the submitter (ITPs).
> - Putting the burden in submitter is wrong approach.
> He's the postman. He delivers the message. He doesn't
> necessarily know anything "deep" about the Debian or
> how it works. To explain why package is needed?
> Gimme break. Who can master or know 15 000 packages
> and suggest "why this is better than XXX". Perhaps
> an elite 24h system admin whose life is Linux, for
> occasional users - this is not working right.
I'm trying to leave very clear that they are very opened to reopen the
bug(s) (just like you did) that were closed because of the inactivity. I
encourage a lot people to do it, if they really feel/think it's
worthwhile. I'm really trying do be gentle, gimme a break. I offer
myself (and I have done it) to give some help if it is needed, because I
understand the fact you are underlining here.
> - What are the goals of the RFPs in the first place?
> Wasn't the idea that prospective packages get
> their voice and coverage? In the light of recent
> events it seems more like "hey, we don't need
> those RFPs, they just fill in the BTS."
They are getting it. They are not thrown to the garbage bin ignored,
believe me. No one is minimizing your work in the sense you are trying
to make it, Jari.
> Perhaps a better management of BTS is then in order. Or those that see
> managing messages in BTS are difficucult due to volume, that
> those are educted to evaluate to user better Mail/News
> reading software that ocntains filters, topic searches,
> group operations, priority handling feature etc.
>
> Shooting down item just to cut down volume doesn't look like correct
> solution to the annouance some may feel.
Fortunately, some people, because of the 1-year-inactivity closing, have
reacted positively and started to work again in their bugs. Not always
is so bad.
> | Sure, saying "because I want it packaged" being an RFP is quite obvious.
> | A further explanation on this is what's really needed.
>
> This isn't helpful approach in case of RFPs. It may in case of other reopen
> requests, but certainly not with mass closures. we could think that closer
> should equally well "explain" it individually the reason for close -
> otherwise the situation is not balanced.
Yeah, agreed above.
> | > David, could you modify your script such that it requests submitters
> | > to add a justification when reopening the RFP? I'd find that rather
> | > useful.
> |
> | Yes. It was added as a suggestion, but yes, I'm adding it now to request
> | it strongly.
>
> I this will be the procedure, then it must be written into policy manual
> as well. Until then this would be more like an suggestion.
Just like already said, there is nothing written for WNPP on the policy.
I'm completely open to any kind of suggestions, really. And I don't see
myself as the fucking bastard who is ignoring other people's work.
--
David Moreno Garza <damog@damog.net> | http://www.damog.net/
<damog@debian.org> | GPG: C671257D
Si no vuelves por que no quieres, si no por que no tienes pa'l pasaje.
Reply to: