Re: Processed: Reopen (on closing WNPP)

[jari.aalto@cante.net (Jari Aalto+mail.linux)]

| On Fri, 2005-09-30 at 08:09 +0300, Jari Aalto+mail.linux wrote:
| > not necessarily "nobody is interested". I can think many other
| > possibilities.
| IMO, the reason for this is because it is a good pinging way.

(Back from vacation...)
Yes I agree and can see the benefits. 
 
[other things that would be more important from quality perspective]

| 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.

Sure.
 
| > 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.

I understood this and that's why a request to "explain" WNPP reopen was a
little bit of a surprise.
 
| > - 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". 
| 
| 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.

This is perfectly fine, but the start was a little rough. 
I'd like to propose a more gentle scripts:

*) after 6 months send a "ping"

   ... Hey, you submitted RFP ... and it's still open
   Please consider if you could possibly package this
   ... you can find sponsors ... etc.
   this is automatic message that monitors the status
   of the requests ...
   
*) after 9 months

  ... Hm, it seems that long time has passed
  since your RFP and the message has been gone
  unnoticed. Previously you were queried if
  you could offer help to package this since
  other Debian developers seem to be busy. 
  ... you can find sponsors .. etc.
  this is automatic message that monitors the status
  of the requests ...
  
*) After 12 months

  In order to find prospective packages that
  have sufficient interest, we found that your
  RFP has been open 12 months. If you still
  would like to keep it open, here are the
  instructions...

  If you do nothing, this RFP will be (archived)
  ...

Similarly for ITPs: Perhaps in more faster
timetable (3 + 3 months after which it should
be converted to RFP for 3 months.)

| 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.

My concern was more against the "sudden closure" and the fear
that others that may propose new packages are discouraged
to do so, if the system clean those.

Would there be others choice than to close the RFPs? Could they just be
left to sink further down in the list (I assume list of RFPs can be listed
in FIFO order from some web page).

Perhaps after 2 years a package can be considered obsolete enough to be
closed permanently.

| 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.

I agree. The notices are fine to "warn" about upcoming events. Perhaps
this can be a more subtle/phased and not a single message which 
announces a close.
 
| > 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.

I feel that the process should be as open as possible. If this is the
current and future procedure, the policy manual should be updated by adding
a note beside the RFP to explain what will happen to it during it's
lifetime. Similarly to others like ITPs if similar policies are applied to
them.

It is always good to make internal "tacit knowledge" explicit if at all
possible, otherwise it will confuse people that do not have the ability to
participate full time in Debian project (mailing lists etc.).

Jari