Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Scott Kitterman Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 22:20:01 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Sat Mar 2 21:12:47 2024 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.51 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, MD5_SHA1_SUM=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -5.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21518 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/AC7A3279-0AFC-4320-8EED-9D2C4C258D10@kitterman.com Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 140 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2024 21:11:52 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <80455cbe-cc13-4240-8517-f9ba0512c32e@debian.org> <93E5EE46-6619-4584-B28E-1D4B6A3AB389@kitterman.com> <20240229204833.2feaaf80@debian.org> <20240301130818.326b8094@debian.org> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:15535 On March 2, 2024 8:29:47 PM UTC, Andreas Tille wrote: >Hi Jeroen, > >Am Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 08:48:33PM +0100 schrieb Jeroen Ploemen: >> =2E=2E=2E > >Julian had sensibly commented on this and had added interesting >questions I'm keen on hearing your answers=2E > >> As for the inclusion of codes of conduct or similar wording, >> documenting common sense just feels unnecessary=2E While being on the >> receiving end of a compliment for bug-squashing work is certainly >> nice, the lack thereof isn't a measure of disrespect=2E > >Julien also commented on this=2E Despite I never thought to spent so muc= h >time on the bug that triggered the discussion I consider it important >enough to clarify some misunderstandings which obviously were caused by >the mails I wrote about this=2E > >As a non-native speaker, I am actively working on improving my >communication skills=2E I would appreciate it if you could point out whic= h >part of my messages led you to believe that I felt disrespected=2E My >intention was simply to provide some insight into why the task someone >scheduled for me was not high on my priority list during my spare time=2E > >To summarize the visible facts: > > 2023-12-12 serious bug #1058177 was filed, solution for this kind of > bugs is simple for maintainers comfortable with Python 3=2E12 > > 2023-12-22 closed with changelog > [ Andreas Tille ] > * Set DPT maintainer > * Replace SafeConfigParser deprecated in Python3=2E12 > Closes: #1058177 > * Transparently skip test_bad_pagebuilder instead of ignoring test su= ite > errors > > --> I confirm "Set DPT mainter" was in conflict with DPT policy since > I just forgot about that very detail and considered it some > unintended oversight=2E I will not do this again as long as this > policy is not changed > > Response in Salsa comment[1] > > Sandro Tosi: @tille please explain why you think this is appropriate > > Andreas Tille: In all teams I know policy says the team address should b= e put > as Maintainer=2E After checking DPT policy again again I realise it gi= ves both > options with different meanings=2E Sorry about that and feel free to r= evert=2E > > Sandro Tosi: @tille you made the mistake, so you do the reverting and th= e > uploading to rectify it=2E > > >Comment: That seems fair=2E If my real-life boss had asked, I would have >done it, considering he pays me for it=2E Fortunately, my day job boss >knows how to motivate me better=2E I wouldn't had brought this up on my >own behalf=2E I just went into more detail to explain why I did not fixe= d >my mistake immediately=2E As a volunteer, I have the freedom to choose >which tasks to prioritize=2E A little kindness in communication can >significantly impact my priorities=2E I wasn't expecting a "thank you fo= r >fixing the bug," but I believe it's unrealistic for Sandro to expect me >to follow such commands as a volunteer=2E (Fun fact: I was throwing the >last two paragraphs into a LLM and besides fixing my paragraph several >changes where suggested to Sandro's quote=2E) > > >sphinxtesters (0=2E2=2E3-4) unstable; urgency=3Dmedium > > * Revert attempt by a rogue developer to hijack this package > > -- Sandro Tosi Sun, 14 Jan 2024 01:25:23 -0500 > > >I wonder how the attribute 'rogue' is supported by the discussion above, >nor where the intention to hijack the package is inferred from=2E > > >sphinxtesters (0=2E2=2E3-5) unstable; urgency=3Dmedium > > * orphan > > -- Sandro Tosi Thu, 29 Feb 2024 01:55:25 -0500 > > >I admit the last upload makes the initial request to revert the >Maintainer change questionable=2E I also confirm that I have experienced >worse things before than giving me the attribute "rogue" or blaming >me about bad intentions=2E Fine for me I developed some thick skin >meanwhile=2E > >> I cannot recall >> any discussion on the team's IRC channel or mailing list crossing >> that line=2E > >If you cannot recall anything that crossed the line I intended to draw >explicitly in our policy through my MR[2], I am curious to know where, >in your opinion, this falls in relation to our goal of 'striving to >create a kind and inviting atmosphere among team members=2E' If it would >be only about me, I would simply move on (which I did until there was >another point of friction with no public traces)=2E But it does concern >fostering a welcoming team environment=2E In my view, this crosses the >line, and I am grateful to have been part of teams where such incidents >were not tolerated=2E > >Kind regards > Andreas=2E > >[1] https://salsa=2Edebian=2Eorg/python-team/packages/sphinxtesters/-/com= mit/d8b1083db26c753c8a76dd91b7e91f3ef98c0515#note_450676 >[2] https://salsa=2Edebian=2Eorg/python-team/tools/python-modules/-/merge= _requests/21 > It's possible I am misunderstanding you here (languages are hard even when= they are your first), but if I am not, I think you are not really seeing t= hings from the correct perspective=2E Here's my summary of what I understa= nd your argument to be: I did not follow the team policy and didn't care about the other people in= volved to rectify the error=2E They were upset about this, so clearly this= mess is all their fault=2E We should change the rules so that I won't hav= e been wrong=2E I absolutely do not know how to respond to that level of entitlement=2E H= opefully I have misunderstood what you are trying to communicate? Scott K