Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.maint.python > #11988 > unrolled thread

PAPT: join request

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.maint.python

Contents

  PAPT: join request intrigeri <intrigeri@debian.org> - 2019-11-08 09:00 +0100
    Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join  request) Louis-Philippe Véronneau <pollo@debian.org> - 2019-11-08 22:20 +0100
    Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request) Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-10 01:30 +0100
      Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request) Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY <noon@mykolab.com> - 2019-11-11 09:30 +0100
      Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2019-11-11 21:20 +0100
        Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request) Sandro Tosi <morph@debian.org> - 2019-11-12 02:40 +0100
    Re: PAPT: join request Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2019-11-26 12:10 +0100

#11988 — PAPT: join request

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

Hi,

Louis-Philippe Véronneau is in the process of adopting the
bookletimposer package (that I've been maintaining alone so far) under
the PAPT umbrella; I'll co-maintain and sponsor; therefore, I need to
join the PAPT.

My Salsa handle is: intrigeri

I've read
https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst
and I accept it.

In passing, two small issues I've spotted while reading the doc:

 - In https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin,
   the "Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields" section
   mentions an "unwritten policy". Said policy seems to have been
   written since:
   https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst

 - https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-apps/blob/master/policy.rst
   reads

      […] you'll get a "sponsor" role on Alioth.

   … which sounds outdated.

Cheers,
-- 
intrigeri

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#11991 — Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

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

On 19-11-08 16 h 01, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> Hi intri!
> 
> I'm very glad to count you as a member of the team! Welcome. [1]
> I'd be glad if more perl team members join, it's so much always a
> pleasure to meet you at each debconf.
> 
> On 11/8/19 8:54 AM, intrigeri wrote:
>>  - In https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin,
>>    the "Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields" section
>>    mentions an "unwritten policy". Said policy seems to have been
>>    written since:
>>    https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst
> 
> It's probably time to revisit this policy. I've heard many voices
> telling that a package should either be in the team, or just not, and I
> very much agree with this. This middle-ground makes no sense.

We now have a proper way to propose updates to the policy [1]!

Once the DPMT and the PAPT teams have been merged (see [2]), we will
have to clean up the Python Team's wikis. I guess it would also be a
good time to revisit things like that "unwritten" policy :)

[1]:
https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst#L154

[2]:
https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/merge_requests/10

-- 
  ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
  ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁  Louis-Philippe Véronneau
  ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋   pollo@debian.org / veronneau.org
  ⠈⠳⣄

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11994 — Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

> On 11/8/19 8:54 AM, intrigeri wrote:
> >  - In https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin,
> >    the "Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields" section
> >    mentions an "unwritten policy". Said policy seems to have been
> >    written since:
> >    https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst
>
> It's probably time to revisit this policy. I've heard many voices
> telling that a package should either be in the team, or just not, and I
> very much agree with this. This middle-ground makes no sense.

is there any public trace of these "many voices"? i, for one, very
much like this policy, and would like to continue having it; and btw,
it is still in place so everyone should adhere to it (since they
promised to so when joining the team).

-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#11996 — Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

For the record, it looks like this policy comes from the package
"developers-reference", section "Collaborative maintenance".

--
Fabrice BAUZAC-STEHLY
PGP 015AE9B25DCB0511D200A75DE5674DEA514C891D

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12004 — Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

On November 10, 2019 10:09:57 PM UTC, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>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... I'm just saying it's hard to know
>otherwise).
>
>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. 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.
>
>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.
>
>As Louis-Philippe wrote, it's very much ok to delay this conversation,
>but sooner or later, it will come back on the table.

Personally, I've been judicious in putting myself as Maintainer in DPMT and PAPT packages.  If we were to ditch the current policy, my immediate response would be to remove DPMT/PAPT from uploaders and maintain them outside the team.  It's about 1/4 of my DPMT/PAPT packages.

I suspect I'm not the only one.

Your proposal is not cost free for the teams.

Scott K

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12005 — Re: Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields (was: PAPT: join request)

that policy is well written down, at
https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin - give it a
look and see if it clarifies your doubt about team maintenance and why
someone would prefer to have the ultimate responsibility for the
quality of a package.

you already created the openstack team (which is great!) with exactly
and only the rules you like, where you're free to do what you feel is
best; that's great but please also realize not everyone shares the
same ideas as yours and you should try sometimes to respect those
people decisions too.

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 6:14 PM Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On 11/11/19 9:17 PM, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > Personally, I've been judicious in putting myself as Maintainer in DPMT and PAPT packages.  If we were to ditch the current policy, my immediate response would be to remove DPMT/PAPT from uploaders and maintain them outside the team.  It's about 1/4 of my DPMT/PAPT packages.
> >
> > I suspect I'm not the only one.
> >
> > Your proposal is not cost free for the teams.
> >
> > Scott K
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Exactly what difference would it make? Just that your package would
> really appear as not team-maintained, which is already the current plain
> reality (as the "unwritten policy" tells nobody else but you can touch
> the package). So I don't see why anyone in the team would mind.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thomas Goirand (zigo)
>


-- 
Sandro "morph" Tosi
My website: http://sandrotosi.me/
Me at Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/SandroTosi
Twitter: https://twitter.com/sandrotosi

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12043

[intrigeri, 2019-11-08]
> the PAPT umbrella; I'll co-maintain and sponsor; therefore, I need to
> join the PAPT.
> 
> My Salsa handle is: intrigeri
> 
> I've read
> https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst
> and I accept it.

welcome and sorry for the delay :(

>  - In https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/PythonModulesTeam/HowToJoin,
>    the "Policy About Maintainer and Uploaders Fields" section
>    mentions an "unwritten policy". Said policy seems to have been
>    written since:
>    https://salsa.debian.org/python-team/tools/python-modules/blob/master/policy.rst

feel free to edit the wiki (as a new member) :)
-- 
GPG: 1D2F A898 58DA AF62 1786 2DF7 AEF6 F1A2 A745 7645

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.maint.python

csiph-web