Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: =?UTF-8?Q?Louis-Philippe_V=C3=A9ronneau?= Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 21:40:02 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Original-To: debian-python@lists.debian.org X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Tue Feb 27 20:36:51 2024 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-108.007 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, BODY_8BITS=1.5, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.088, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FOURLA=0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001, USER_IN_DKIM_WELCOMELIST=-0.01, USER_IN_DKIM_WHITELIST=-100] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US Autocrypt: addr=pollo@debian.org; keydata= xjMEYEPdjBYJKwYBBAHaRw8BAQdA5yh8SOHhcvKeX/A4rv0/JTCL8Kgnnwy4/okKh1Htbs3N LExvdWlzLVBoaWxpcHBlIFbDqXJvbm5lYXUgPHBvbGxvQGRlYmlhbi5vcmc+wpYEExYKAD4C GwMFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AWIQT2TWHTIfPLSJFWdT3h5UV8i61BEwUCZb/f iAUJDuIDfAAKCRDh5UV8i61BEzdaAP0cGJp8CpkywzefhdaJjfK5/uAQLRg5Bk6yCWnyR8B4 wQEAxA4C39PJPsosgOVBMdfkzCPhGVynYBnujOyEcksX1w/OOARgQ+DlEgorBgEEAZdVAQUB AQdAgRLbDfS/6GLXd15qI9zHso9UwJQgDbme7pvL1Z9rkG4DAQgHwn4EGBYKACYCGwwWIQT2 TWHTIfPLSJFWdT3h5UV8i61BEwUCZb/fsAUJDuIASgAKCRDh5UV8i61BEwYaAQDhvbQQqmTD F/fdodzfiY45IWYckb9rCvKaVnfP6DOY9QEA/eeaEWmOq2NpOYpBesVjBZCLe8jKv1WPMfLL YOfDIAc= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Debian-User: pollo X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21483 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/ada5da23-b6f3-4525-8a5c-b6885be7fcce@debian.org Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 104 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 15:36:24 -0500 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:15505 On 2024-02-27 03:05, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > I became more deeply involved into DPT since 2022 as a consequence of > the suggestion for transfering several Debian Med/Science packages to > DPMT[1][2]. I happily followed this suggestion and moved >30 packages > from the Blends teams to DPT. I was happy with this move since it makes > sense. > > Recently we received lots of testing removal warnings in those Blends > teams due to RC bugs caused by Cython 3.0 and Python3.12 migrations. So > I did what I usually do in those teams: I dedicated quite some time in > team wide bug hunting. That way I squashed about 50 bugs on packages > where I was not in Uploaders. When doing so I usually run > routine-update on the package which basically streamlines packaging to > latest standards including calling Janitor tools which are so far > accepted inside DPT. > > I probably should have reviewed the DPT policy on Maintainership[3] more > carefully. In other teams, it's common for the Maintainer to be set to > the team, so I assumed it was just an oversight when I made this > change[4] when touching the package to fix RC bug #1058177. However, I > I was pointed immediately about the fact that I was mistaken according > to the current DPT policy. I apologize for this. However, the wording > of the comment on my commit was discouraging, especially considering I > was a volunteer who had fixed a critical bug. Because of this, I > decided to focus my efforts on fixing other critical bugs for the > moment. If the comment had started with a 'Thanks for fixing the > critical bug, but...' I likely would have corrected my mistake quickly. > The lack of respect from my teammate simply made me prioritize my time > on other issues that are more visible to our users. I wonder whether I > should propose another change to the policy about maintaining a kind and > polite language inside the team - but that's a different thing. > > While I applied the patch for another RC bug (#1063443) after >2 weeks > which triggered a RC bug in reportbug I remembered the "keep the > maintainer" policy. But I kept on doing Janitor like changes since > finally the package is maintained in a team where Janitor is accepted. > When doing so I failed the phrase "please contact the Maintainer for the > green light." I apoligize for this again. The response was another > volunteer-demotivating private mail (thus no quote) which also was > lacking the "Thanks for fixing"-phrase and degrading my changes as > "frivolous". > > So far what happened (seen from my possibly biased perspective). > > Why do I like to change the policy? > > The current wording provides some means to stop volunteer team members > helping out moving forward to speed up migrations and fix Debian wide > dependencies. It hides team maintained packages from a common BTS > view. When pointing my browser to > https://bugs.debian.org/team+python@tracker.debian.org > I currently see 1339 open bugs (calculated by [UDD1]). This hides > another 309 [UDD2] bugs (>18% of team bugs) from our sight. To work > around this flaw I used an UDD query to find relevant Python3.12 bugs. > > When I think twice about the wording > Team in Uploaders is a weak statement of collaboration.[3] > I personally consider it a statement of *no* collaboration (which fits > the wording of the responses I've got). > > How can a team member for instance find another RC bug #1009424? Just > from reading the bug report it is pretty easy to fix but does not > feature any response in BTS. I came across this while looking into > Cython 3.0 bugs. The same source package (basemap) that had the open > Cython bug (#1056789, tagged patch since 2023-12-09) is featuring RC bug > (#1009424) that stayed unattended for 22 months? We all know volunteers > have limited time and I do not want to blame anybody in the team to not > care promptly about RC bugs. But what else is the sense of a packaging > team than stepping in situations for long standing RC bugs and RC bugs > tagged patch? > > This kind of situation wouldn't occur in teams where collaboration is > strong and communication is effective. My motivation to address these > long-ignored critical bugs diminishes when the maintainer opts for > "weak" cooperation and lacks respectful communication with potential > helpers. I see no difference to simply do a NMU. > > I've checked the current situation who is actually using the DPT team as > Uploaders[UDD3]. 66 of the 73 maintainers have less than 5 packages > some of these "Maintainers" are other teams and lots of the persons > listed as Maintainer are known to be MIA. This means the packages are > de-facto not maintained which is most probably an unwanted effect of the > current policy. I know other maintainers from other teams to be fine > with stronger team understanding. > > Since I consider the current situation as demotivating for newcomers > as well as long standing contributors I would like to suggest to drop > this "weak statement of collaboration" option from policy. I've attached > an according patch to the team policy[5]. I'm fine with creating a MR > to be discussed rather in Salsa than this mailing list - whatever seems > worthwhile to you. I too, support this change. As Scott said, I want to reiterate that I think it's important that anyone who thinks this is a bad idea to make themselves heard. -- ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Louis-Philippe Véronneau ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋ pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org ⠈⠳⣄