Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #15551

Re: Suggesting change in DPT Policy

From	Nilesh Patra <nilesh@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.maint.python
Subject	Re: Suggesting change in DPT Policy
Date	2024-03-09 18:00 +0100
Message-ID	<Ig8db-fvsk-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<Ic0Hf-cWrX-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	The Debian Project

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On 2024-02-27 03:05, Andreas Tille wrote:
>  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 am late to the party but I agree with the policy change.

Best,
Nilesh

Thread

Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-27 09:10 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Talbert <swt@techie.net> - 2024-02-27 15:30 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-02-27 19:40 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-02-28 01:00 +0100
        Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 08:10 +0100
          Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-02-28 12:50 +0100
            Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 15:40 +0100
        Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-02-28 13:00 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Jeroen Ploemen <jcfp@debian.org> - 2024-02-29 20:50 +0100
        Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2024-03-01 08:30 +0100
          Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Jeroen Ploemen <jcfp@debian.org> - 2024-03-01 13:10 +0100
            Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <tille@debian.org> - 2024-03-02 21:40 +0100
              Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-03-02 22:20 +0100
                Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-03-02 23:20 +0100
                Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-03-03 07:20 +0100
                Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-03-03 18:20 +0100
  +1 (Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy) Jochen Sprickerhof <jspricke@debian.org> - 2024-02-27 15:40 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2024-02-27 16:10 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 08:20 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Étienne Mollier <emollier@debian.org> - 2024-02-28 09:40 +0100
        Maintaining packages with complex relationships (Was: Suggesting  change in DPT policy) Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 12:00 +0100
          Re: Maintaining packages with complex relationships (Was: Suggesting  change in DPT policy) Timo Röhling <roehling@debian.org> - 2024-02-28 16:50 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Martin <debacle@debian.org> - 2024-02-27 16:40 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy weepingclown <weepingclown@disroot.org> - 2024-02-27 17:30 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 09:10 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Arto Jantunen <viiru@debian.org> - 2024-02-27 21:30 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2024-02-27 21:40 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 09:30 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2024-02-28 15:30 +0100
        Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-02-28 15:50 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2024-02-28 03:00 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Agathe Porte <gagath@debian.org> - 2024-02-28 10:30 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2024-02-28 11:50 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Salvo Tomaselli <tiposchi@tiscali.it> - 2024-03-01 01:20 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Stefano Rivera <stefanor@debian.org> - 2024-03-03 00:10 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Emmanuel Arias <eamanu@yaerobi.com> - 2024-03-03 00:40 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Alexandre Detiste <alexandre.detiste@gmail.com> - 2024-03-03 16:20 +0100
  Re: Suggesting change in DPT Policy Nilesh Patra <nilesh@debian.org> - 2024-03-09 18:00 +0100
    Re: Suggesting change in DPT Policy Anton Gladky <gladk@debian.org> - 2024-03-09 18:50 +0100
      Re: Suggesting change in DPT Policy Julian Gilbey <julian@d-and-j.net> - 2024-03-09 22:30 +0100
        Re: Suggesting change in DPT Policy Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2024-03-19 08:40 +0100

csiph-web