Path: csiph.com!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!news2.arglkargh.de!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python
Subject: Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 21:20:02 +0100
Message-ID: <z1oki-4zo-9@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <z07lv-3j6-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <z0jPH-2X1-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <z0Jh7-25O-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <z1dfb-5Oo-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <debian@kitterman.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 45
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:12004



On November 10, 2019 10:09:57 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian=2Eorg> w=
rote:
>On 11/10/19 1:20 AM, Sandro Tosi wrote:
>> is there any public trace of these "many voices"?
>
>Just like when we discussed moving away from SVN to Git, we can't know
>the exact number unless we have a kind of poll/vote (but we don't
>actually *have* to start such poll=2E=2E=2E I'm just saying it's hard to =
know
>otherwise)=2E
>
>However, I can account for maybe 5 people (it's hard to remember) who
>told me (face to face) they hate this policy, and it felt like there
>was
>a broad consensus that it was really against a team spirit, plus it
>made
>little sense to have a package team maintained with strong ownership=2E I
>wouldn't name the persons I have in mind publicly, because they haven't
>granted me the permission to do so, and therefore, it wouldn't be nice
>to do so=2E
>
>All of this is just feelings I had during conversations with others,
>and
>of course, cannot be accounted as just plain facts, so just take it as
>it is: just a report of the feeling I had when talking with others,
>that
>it looks like I'm far from the only one disliking this policy because
>of
>the above mentioned reasons=2E
>
>As Louis-Philippe wrote, it's very much ok to delay this conversation,
>but sooner or later, it will come back on the table=2E

Personally, I've been judicious in putting myself as Maintainer in DPMT an=
d PAPT packages=2E  If we were to ditch the current policy, my immediate re=
sponse would be to remove DPMT/PAPT from uploaders and maintain them outsid=
e the team=2E  It's about 1/4 of my DPMT/PAPT packages=2E

I suspect I'm not the only one=2E

Your proposal is not cost free for the teams=2E

Scott K