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

Groups > linux.debian.project > #8869 > unrolled thread

Replace the TC power to depose maintainers

Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.project

Contents

  Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-01 16:50 +0100
    Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 17:20 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Sean Whitton <spwhitton@spwhitton.name> - 2016-12-01 18:30 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-01 19:00 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-01 18:50 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-01 19:10 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 19:30 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Sheetal Shalini <sheetalsh456@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 11:40 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Jérémy Bobbio <lunar@debian.org> - 2016-12-03 21:30 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2016-12-08 16:30 +0100
    Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 19:10 +0100
    Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Clint Adams <clint@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 19:30 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 19:40 +0100
    Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2016-12-01 19:30 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-02 12:50 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-02 13:40 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-02 14:00 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2016-12-02 16:10 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Iustin Pop <iustin@debian.org> - 2016-12-02 20:40 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-12-02 13:20 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-02 13:50 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-12-02 14:50 +0100
            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Mattia Rizzolo <mattia@debian.org> - 2016-12-02 16:30 +0100
            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2016-12-02 23:30 +0100
              Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2016-12-03 07:00 +0100
                Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:30 +0100
                  Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> - 2016-12-03 11:50 +0100
                    Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Sheetal Shalini <sheetalsh456@gmail.com> - 2016-12-03 11:50 +0100
                      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers David Bremner <david@tethera.net> - 2016-12-03 12:20 +0100
                    Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 12:40 +0100
                      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 18:50 +0100
                        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 19:10 +0100
                          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2016-12-05 19:20 +0100
                            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2016-12-05 20:10 +0100
                            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Laura Arjona Reina <larjona@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 20:10 +0100
                            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-05 21:10 +0100
                              Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 23:10 +0100
                                Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages] Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-06 05:30 +0100
                                Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was:  Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-06 09:20 +0100
                                  Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages  (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2016-12-06 10:20 +0100
                                    Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was:  Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-06 15:00 +0100
                                      Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages  (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> - 2016-12-06 15:20 +0100
                                        Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages  (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-12-06 15:20 +0100
                                          Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was:  Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-06 16:00 +0100
                                            Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages  (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2016-12-06 16:10 +0100
                                              Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was:  Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> - 2016-12-06 16:20 +0100
                                                Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages  (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Lars Wirzenius <liw@liw.fi> - 2016-12-06 16:30 +0100
                                                  Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages  (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-06 16:50 +0100
                                                    Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages  (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Enrico Zini <enrico@enricozini.org> - 2016-12-11 19:50 +0100
                                                      Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages  (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 02:30 +0100
                                                        Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-12 02:40 +0100
                                                          Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:00 +0100
                                                            Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-12 03:20 +0100
                                                              Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 14:20 +0100
                                                                Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-12 15:30 +0100
                                                                  Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
                                                                  Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
                                                                    Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> - 2016-12-12 19:40 +0100
                                                          Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages Vincent Bernat <bernat@debian.org> - 2016-12-12 09:30 +0100
                                                            Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-12 13:50 +0100
                                                Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages  (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-12-06 16:40 +0100
                                    Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages  (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2016-12-06 18:40 +0100
                                  Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was:  Replace the TC power to depose maintainers) Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-06 14:50 +0100
            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> - 2016-12-08 16:40 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Rhonda D'Vine <rhonda@deb.at> - 2016-12-09 13:10 +0100
            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 02:20 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-02 16:50 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> - 2016-12-03 11:50 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-03 18:40 +0100
            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-03 23:30 +0100
              Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 12:10 +0100
                Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-05 19:30 +0100
                Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-05 21:20 +0100
                  Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 23:10 +0100
                    Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-05 23:20 +0100
                      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-06 00:20 +0100
                        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-06 01:00 +0100
                          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-06 15:10 +0100
                    Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-06 05:40 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 15:20 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-06 15:30 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2016-12-07 11:30 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 12:00 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Scott Kitterman <debian@kitterman.com> - 2016-12-08 07:40 +0100
            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> - 2016-12-08 11:30 +0100
      Maintainerless Hive-Mind? (was Re: Replace the TC power to depose  maintainers) Guillem Jover <guillem@debian.org> - 2016-12-08 03:20 +0100
        Re: Maintainerless Hive-Mind? (was Re: Replace the TC power to  depose maintainers) Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> - 2016-12-09 11:40 +0100
    Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 15:20 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 15:50 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-05 19:50 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 15:50 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2016-12-05 16:10 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 18:50 +0100
            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-05 21:30 +0100
              Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-05 23:00 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-05 21:20 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-05 22:10 +0100
            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-05 22:20 +0100
              Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-05 22:50 +0100
            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Matthew Woodcraft <matthew@woodcraft.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 23:20 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Philip Hands <phil@hands.com> - 2016-12-10 07:50 +0100
          Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 02:40 +0100
            Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no> - 2016-12-16 13:30 +0100
              Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-16 14:10 +0100
    Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Russell Stuart <russell-debian@stuart.id.au> - 2016-12-07 00:10 +0100
      Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> - 2016-12-07 09:40 +0100
        Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2016-12-07 12:00 +0100

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

#8884

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

Hi,

Quoting Holger Levsen (2016-12-02 13:11:05)
> I'm just commenting on this single issue (and aspect of it…) here+now…
> 
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 07:20:36PM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely.
> > This is the obviously right solution.
> 
> while I can see where you are coming from and where you want us to go, 
> (and while I like the direction…) I'm not sure such a move would be
> beneficial, because of unintended consequences:
> 
> motivation. being able to say "I'm the maintainer of $foo" is a *great*
> motivation for many. Taking this away *might* cause a lot more harm that
> gain.

Why would this be taken away?

If the majority of recent debian/changelog entries are by you, I would claim
that it's no problem for you to still call yourself the maintainer because
apparently that's what you are doing: maintaining a package. It's just that
others could potentially also upload fixes. But it doesn't take away the work
you do or that you are doing most of it. That you are doing most of it will
still be visible.

Counter example to your argument:

People have repeatedly called me "the sbuild maintainer" and that is despite:

 - my first sbuild upload was only a little more than a year ago
 - the package is still team maintained
 - I only added myself to the Uploaders field four weeks ago

I agree, it feels great to be called the maintainer of $foo, but in my
experience people call you "the maintainer" even if you haven't maintained that
thing for a very long time, the package is team maintained and you are not even
in the Uploaders field.

cheers, josch

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

#8886

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

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:40:31PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > motivation. being able to say "I'm the maintainer of $foo" is a *great*
> > motivation for many. Taking this away *might* cause a lot more harm that
> > gain.
> Why would this be taken away?
 
motivation works in strange ways. and it doesnt work the same all of us
too…

> If the majority of recent debian/changelog entries are by you, I would claim
> that it's no problem for you to still call yourself the maintainer because
> apparently that's what you are doing: maintaining a package. It's just that
> others could potentially also upload fixes. But it doesn't take away the work
> you do or that you are doing most of it. That you are doing most of it will
> still be visible.

while true, your "story" doesnt take into account those who "need" to be
listed in the maintainer field to feel proud, responsible, etc.

I'm not saying people like you dont exist, nor that your reasoning aint
sensible. I've just said some people take motivation from being listed
as maintainer.

I'll add that motivation onced harmed is hard to bring back.

> Counter example to your argument:
[...] 
> I agree, it feels great to be called the maintainer of $foo, but in my
> experience people call you "the maintainer" even if you haven't maintained that
> thing for a very long time, the package is team maintained and you are not even
> in the Uploaders field.

Your counter example doesnt invalidate my example at all. It's great
that we will keep you as the sbuild maintainer, just imagine how stupid
it would be to loose others because this is important to them.

Even unconsciously important.


I do agree with zack's original goal here however. And I also understood that
he is well aware that this needs changes in our culture. I just wanted to
point out that this aspect of our  cultur is not only harmful but also has
huge benefits. So I'm wondering, maybe instead of getting rid of the
maintainer field, we should get rid of the uploaders field and allow several
maintainers in the maintainers field? I dunno.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

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

#8888

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

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:39:30PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 01:40:31PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> > > motivation. being able to say "I'm the maintainer of $foo" is a *great*
> > > motivation for many. Taking this away *might* cause a lot more harm that
> > > gain.
> > Why would this be taken away?
>  
> motivation works in strange ways. and it doesnt work the same all of us
> too…

Example (that I feel is about to happen to me too): a package where
you're listed as Maintainer, you used to be interested in it, now you
are not anymore; you should probably orphan or RFA it, but you still
care a bit about it and you're keeping it very well because you're a
great maintainer nonetheless.  I think that if I were forced to remove
my name from it I'd just forget and let it go to waste by discarding
that bit that I cared about.

-- 
regards,
                        Mattia Rizzolo

GPG Key: 66AE 2B4A FCCF 3F52 DA18  4D18 4B04 3FCD B944 4540      .''`.
more about me:  https://mapreri.org                             : :'  :
Launchpad user: https://launchpad.net/~mapreri                  `. `'`
Debian QA page: https://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=mattia  `-

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

#8891

On Fri, 02 Dec 2016, Holger Levsen wrote:
> I'm not saying people like you dont exist, nor that your reasoning aint
> sensible. I've just said some people take motivation from being listed
> as maintainer.

We could get rid of "Maintainer" in debian/control and still display
on tracker.debian.org the name of people who are uploading/committing
in a dynamic "Maintainer" section.

Actually, this is part of my grand-plan... :-) aka
http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep2/

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/

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

#8892

On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> We could get rid of "Maintainer" in debian/control and still display
> on tracker.debian.org the name of people who are uploading/committing
> in a dynamic "Maintainer" section.
>
> Actually, this is part of my grand-plan... :-) aka
> http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep2/

I'd like to reframe this discussion a little bit...

What exactly is the Maintainer* field for?

Initially it was a way for individuals to declare their commitment to
perform all tasks in relation to a package.

Today, as well as being conflated with package ownership, I feel that
it does not sufficiently represent the reality of individual
commitments towards actions needed for packages, for
Maintainers/Uploaders, the Debian packaging community in general and
other people.

I would like to see Maintainer/Uploaders replaced with some sort of
fine-grained commitment registration system:

I commit to spending 3 hours per week on $package.
I commit to triaging bugs on $package.
I commit to working on RC bugs on $package.
I commit to testing proposed security updates on $package.
I commit to testing alpha versions of $package.
I commit to reviewing changes to $package.
I commit to sponsoring non-member updates to $package.

* and why did we make the huge mistake of not calling it Maintainers
and then making the secondary mistake of introducing Uploaders instead
of renaming it to Maintainers.

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

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

#8893

Paul Wise writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> I'd like to reframe this discussion a little bit...
> 
> What exactly is the Maintainer* field for?
> 
> Initially it was a way for individuals to declare their commitment to
> perform all tasks in relation to a package.

Not at all.

Mainly, it was a way to control who got email about the package.

> * and why did we make the huge mistake of not calling it Maintainers

I was there at the time; this may even have been my fault.  Sorry.

> and then making the secondary mistake of introducing Uploaders instead
> of renaming it to Maintainers.

That was madness.  We should have just fixed the things that wanted a
single email address for that field.

We could still do this.  "Team maintained" packages would end up with
  Maintainer: Alice, Bob, Cryptographic Tales Team

> I would like to see Maintainer/Uploaders replaced with some sort of
> fine-grained commitment registration system:
> 
> I commit to [stuff]

Oh god please no.  I wouldn't ever want to make any such statement.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

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

#8895

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

On Sat, 2016-12-03 at 10:27 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:

> Mainly, it was a way to control who got email about the package.

Why was it called Maintainer instead of something more suitable then?

> I was there at the time; this may even have been my fault.  Sorry.

No worries, this is all hindsight talking.

> That was madness.  We should have just fixed the things that wanted a
> single email address for that field.
> 
> We could still do this.  "Team maintained" packages would end up with
>   Maintainer: Alice, Bob, Cryptographic Tales Team

Instead, I'd kill Maintainer and use DEP-2 to manage who gets email for
a package, especially since that changes independently of packages.

> Oh god please no.  I wouldn't ever want to make any such statement.

Technically, you already are, with Maintainer/Uploaders :)

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-maintainer

-- 
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

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

#8897

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

Hi

How do I unsubscribe from Debian Project mailing list?




Thanks and Regards.

Sheetal Shalini
3rd Year B.Tech CSE
NITK Surathkal


On Sat, Dec 3, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 2016-12-03 at 10:27 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>
> > Mainly, it was a way to control who got email about the package.
>
> Why was it called Maintainer instead of something more suitable then?
>
> > I was there at the time; this may even have been my fault.  Sorry.
>
> No worries, this is all hindsight talking.
>
> > That was madness.  We should have just fixed the things that wanted a
> > single email address for that field.
> >
> > We could still do this.  "Team maintained" packages would end up with
> >   Maintainer: Alice, Bob, Cryptographic Tales Team
>
> Instead, I'd kill Maintainer and use DEP-2 to manage who gets email for
> a package, especially since that changes independently of packages.
>
> > Oh god please no.  I wouldn't ever want to make any such statement.
>
> Technically, you already are, with Maintainer/Uploaders :)
>
> https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-binary.html#s-maintainer
>
> --
> bye,
> pabs
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise
>

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

#8898

Sheetal Shalini <sheetalsh456@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi
>
> How do I unsubscribe from Debian Project mailing list?
>

see the instructions on

    https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/

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

#8903 — Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Since I didn't want to sent too many more emails, I'll make three
short replies in one email...

Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> We should go for "weak code ownership" instead, which *in theory* is
> what we already have

Well, no.  What we have is a kind of sticky door when the current code
owner is cooperative.  And many other people have various amounts of
influence.  The release team have a certain amount of power.  But if
the current code owner is uncooperative, they have almost absolute
hard power.

The TC has never desposed an existing maintainer, and very rarely even
overturned an individual decision.

In the past years the most effective check on absurd maintainer
behaviour has been the Release Team, who have functioned in many cases
as an effective backstop.  This is why we have so many arguments about
what counts as an RC bug: If you have tried talking to the maintainer
with no success, getting your bug declared RC by the Release Team is
the only effective way to get the uncooperative maintainer to accept
your patch.

> (given every DD can NMU any package), but the
> *culture* of strong ownership is so rooted in the project that people
> are still too afraid of using it.

If you actually do a nonconsensual NMU in this way, ftpmaster might
remove your package from the queue.  That has happened in the past.
That every DD can upload every package is a technical ability, not
permission.

A DD who uses that technical ability to do the job of the TC (in an
act of "civil disobedience" to the Constitution) will usually find
that their actions are undone or reversed by the project's other power
structures.

Normally, as someone who supports the rule of law, I would think that
a good thing.  But in Debian the rule of law means the rule of the
current maintainer.


Paul Wise writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> On Sat, 2016-12-03 at 10:27 +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > Mainly, it was a way to control who got email about the package.
> 
> Why was it called Maintainer instead of something more suitable then?

Because it's useful to know who to talk to about a package.  Frankly,
the kind of governance difficulties that arise in a project with many
thousands of contributors weren't at the front of our minds...


Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
>  So I'm wondering, maybe instead of getting rid of the
> maintainer field, we should get rid of the uploaders field and allow several
> maintainers in the maintainers field? I dunno.

We should definitely do this.  I don't think it it would be
controversial but also I don't think it would fix anything.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

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

#8909 — Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):

>> We should go for "weak code ownership" instead, which *in theory* is
>> what we already have

> Well, no.  What we have is a kind of sticky door when the current code
> owner is cooperative.  And many other people have various amounts of
> influence.  The release team have a certain amount of power.  But if the
> current code owner is uncooperative, they have almost absolute hard
> power.

> The TC has never desposed an existing maintainer, and very rarely even
> overturned an individual decision.

There is a widespread perception that doing this would frequently cause
that maintainer to leave Debian.  This is quite the mental hurdle to
overcome, and the exhortations to not care about this (the subtext of
"Debian is better without people who would leave because of that") don't
really help.  People get their motivations from different sources.  It's
hard to figure out how to balance this against the demotivating effects of
an ongoing bad situation.

I know you know all this, but I want to restate it for the record because
it affects heavily how I view this proposal.

I think we all agree that this is a bad situation to be in, and we should
not block other active maintainers because we're afraid that we'll
demotivate someone who isn't doing a great job anyway.  In other words, I
don't think anyone views the above situation as a *feature*.  However,
it's still psychologically difficult, and I don't think it becomes less
difficult by ramping up the confrontationalness of the hardest cases (the
ones that come before the TC).  The semi-paralysis is largely already
because the situation is so fraught, and you're proposing making it even
more fraught.

I think this is partly what Zack is getting at.  If we want to make the
situation less fraught, and make changing maintainers or allowing other
people to upload packages a less difficult step to make, formalizing this
as a remedy in hard cases is less effective as just undermining the
concept of maintainership *in general*.  This makes all disputes over
maintainership somewhat less fraught by making maintainership less of a
thing that people feel possessive about, which in turn will make the hard
cases easier to handle as well.

In other words, I completely agree with you on the problem, but I feel
like you're tackling it from the wrong end, since hard cases make bad law.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

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

#8911 — Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Russ Allbery writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]"):
> Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
> > The TC has never desposed an existing maintainer, and very rarely even
> > overturned an individual decision.
> 
> There is a widespread perception that doing this would frequently cause
> that maintainer to leave Debian.  This is quite the mental hurdle to
> overcome,

But what about the contributors who leave Debian because their work is
stymied ?  To worry too much that the maintainer will quit Debian is
neither fair nor effective.

It is not fair because worrying more about the emotions of the
existing maintainer, than the other contributors, is privileging the
emotions of the powerful over those of the weak.  That is unjust.

It is not effective because it amounts to making life more comfortable
for those who block others, even in the face of advice and criticism.
Conversely we discourage for those who face problems trying to get
work done, and discourage those who do not like to fight (and will go
away and do something else).

So this approach is implicitly selecting contributors for
stubbornness, aggression and even selfishness.

> I think we all agree that this is a bad situation to be in, and we
> should not block other active maintainers because we're afraid that
> we'll demotivate someone who isn't doing a great job anyway.  In
> other words, I don't think anyone views the above situation as a
> *feature*.  However, it's still psychologically difficult,

Is there a way we can reframe this so that it is about empowering
those who are constructive but powerless, rather than about protecting
the feelings of the powerful ?

> and I don't think it becomes less difficult by ramping up the
> confrontationalness

I certainly don't think "ramping up the confrontationalness" is what I
am trying to do.

Of course by using this case as an example, that's what I'm doing to
this specific case.  But the situation of "difficult" maintainers is
hardly unusual.  I think there is massive suppressed demand for an
effective way to handle difficult maintainers.  We desperately need a
more effective approach.


> I think this is partly what Zack is getting at.  If we want to make
> the situation less fraught, and make changing maintainers or
> allowing other people to upload packages a less difficult step to
> make, formalizing this as a remedy in hard cases is less effective
> as just undermining the concept of maintainership *in general*.

I am really scared that without some idea of ownership we will be
playing core wars in the archive.  What rules do you propose to
replace maintainership with to prevent this ?

One thing that we /have/ done is made it much easier to transfer
maintainership away from a maintainer who is not realy bothered.
(It's still arguably not easy enough.)

The result is that the remaining cases are _by definition_ the ones
where the maintainer is bothered, and wants to defend their position.

> In other words, I completely agree with you on the problem, but I feel
> like you're tackling it from the wrong end, since hard cases make bad law.

You're saying that _any_ cases of dispute make bad law. 

I think your "hard cases" analogy is competely inapposite, actually.
We're not really talking about making caselaw.


I think the reason there are no "easy" cases before the TC is because
the TC is so ineffective and so unlikely to be useful, that you have
to be *really desperate* or *really frustrated* to invoke the TC.

If the TC were swift and decisive, it would be a much more normal
thing.  More people would have experience that it wasn't the end of
the world to have to have your argument refereed by someone.


If we really follow through on this "hard cases make bad law"
position, it leads to a conclusion that the TC can never work and
should be abolished and replaced with something entirely different.


I take a different view.  We already have ways of handling
maintainership that work well when the maintainer is not too stubborn
or possessive.

We just need a mechanism for dealing with the difficult cases.  That
mechanism is supposed to be the TC, which is supposed to decide cases
on the merits.

Ian.


-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

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

#8912 — Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

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

We've had the "strong package ownership" concept be a problem in
various ways. Many years ago people were afraid of making NMUs to fix
bugs, even RC bugs, and I started the
https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu page. It's got over 300
maintainers now, and NMUs are quite normal, though I suspect zack's
NMU campaigning helped more.

I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package
ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or
something, listing maintainers who are OK if someone hijacks their
package if the maintainer isn't taking good care of it. Would anyone
else than I put themselves on that new page? (If you would, start the
page on the wiki and announce it on this thread, and I'll add myself.)

-- 
I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh

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

#8915 — Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

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

On Mon, Dec 05, 2016 at 08:02:27PM +0100, Laura Arjona Reina wrote:
> I have just created the page:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdAdoption
> 
> and added myself to the list.

I've added myself to the list.

-- 
I want to build worthwhile things that might last. --joeyh

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

#8916 — Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Dear all

El 05/12/16 a las 19:13, Lars Wirzenius escribió:
> We've had the "strong package ownership" concept be a problem in
> various ways. Many years ago people were afraid of making NMUs to fix
> bugs, even RC bugs, and I started the
> https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdNmu page. It's got over 300
> maintainers now, and NMUs are quite normal, though I suspect zack's
> NMU campaigning helped more.
> 
> I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package
> ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or
> something, listing maintainers who are OK if someone hijacks their
> package if the maintainer isn't taking good care of it. 

I like this idea, although I felt confused about the term.

I asked Lars about it in IRC, posting the conversation with his
permission:

<larjona> Hi! I'm not sure about what do you mean about hijack, isn't
the same as "adoption"? I mean, a maintainer sends a RFA or Orphans a
package when she cannot care about it, this is the same, but the
initial movement made by a different DD. Isn't it?
<liw> pretty much. hijack has a stronger connotation where it's done
against the current maintainer's wishes, but my proposed list would
remove that connotation
<liw> possibly hijack is the wrong word
<larjona> I don't know if there is a word in English for when the
state decides to take apart children from bad (no caring) parents, in
Spanish it's "quitar la custodia". That would be the word I would use.
If there is not, "adoption", simply, to encourage people to sign in
the list.
<liw> agreed
<larjona> Or maybr just a list of "cat model package maintainers"
http://www.trueelena.org/computers/articles/the_cat_model_of_package_ownership.html

<liw> LowThresholdAdoption maybe?
<larjona> Yes
<liw> feel free to copy this discussion to the email thread :)
<larjona> Thanks. Will do.

Would anyone
> else than I put themselves on that new page? (If you would, start the
> page on the wiki and announce it on this thread, and I'll add myself.)
> 

I have just created the page:

https://wiki.debian.org/LowThresholdAdoption

and added myself to the list. I've copied some parts from the
LowThresholdNmu wiki page but deleted others (mainly about procedure,
because if more people likes this idea, I guess some "procedure" like
a NM-RFA should be created? I leave this for the
"packaging"(uploading) DDs.

I've added myself to the list for one of the tasks I have committed to
care in Debian, the coordination of the Spanish translation of
www.debian.org.

Best regards

-- 
Laura Arjona Reina
https://wiki.debian.org/LauraArjona

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

#8917 — Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

]] Lars Wirzenius 

> I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package
> ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or
> something, listing maintainers who are OK if someone hijacks their
> package if the maintainer isn't taking good care of it. Would anyone
> else than I put themselves on that new page? (If you would, start the
> page on the wiki and announce it on this thread, and I'll add myself.)

A similar proposal: Have a way of declaring the package to be under
collective maintenance (put it under collab-maint on alioth +
Maintainer: collective@debian.org or somesuch?)  That'd move closer to a
model where individuals don't own that particular package.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

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

#8926 — Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]"):
 Lars Wirzenius 
> > I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package
> > ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or
> > something, listing maintainers who are OK if someone hijacks their
> > package if the maintainer isn't taking good care of it. Would anyone
> > else than I put themselves on that new page? (If you would, start the
> > page on the wiki and announce it on this thread, and I'll add myself.)
> 
> A similar proposal: Have a way of declaring the package to be under
> collective maintenance (put it under collab-maint on alioth +
> Maintainer: collective@debian.org or somesuch?)  That'd move closer to a
> model where individuals don't own that particular package.

This is all very well and good, but frankly, Lars (and the others in
this conversation) are not the problem.  The problem maintainers won't
put themselves on a LowThresholdAdoption list either.

We already have ways of dealing with maintainers who are simply
absent or busy, and not actively resisting.  Our processes for that
are rather cumbersome but it is possible to use them effectively.

What we lack is a way of dealing with maintainers who are determined
not to lose control of their packages.  (And I do mean "control".)

Ian.

-- 
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk>   These opinions are my own.

If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.

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

#8931 — Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]

]] Ian Jackson 

> Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]"):
>  Lars Wirzenius 
> > > I suggest a lighter approach than a GR for eroding the strong package
> > > ownership further is to start another page, "LowThresholdHijack" or
> > > something, listing maintainers who are OK if someone hijacks their
> > > package if the maintainer isn't taking good care of it. Would anyone
> > > else than I put themselves on that new page? (If you would, start the
> > > page on the wiki and announce it on this thread, and I'll add myself.)
> > 
> > A similar proposal: Have a way of declaring the package to be under
> > collective maintenance (put it under collab-maint on alioth +
> > Maintainer: collective@debian.org or somesuch?)  That'd move closer to a
> > model where individuals don't own that particular package.
> 
> This is all very well and good, but frankly, Lars (and the others in
> this conversation) are not the problem.  The problem maintainers won't
> put themselves on a LowThresholdAdoption list either.
> 
> We already have ways of dealing with maintainers who are simply
> absent or busy, and not actively resisting.  Our processes for that
> are rather cumbersome but it is possible to use them effectively.
> 
> What we lack is a way of dealing with maintainers who are determined
> not to lose control of their packages.  (And I do mean "control".)

I believe that cultural change can happen through collective action on
an individual level, rather than sweeping regulation and legislation.

The culture around NMUs has changed _immensely_ in the years I've been
involved in the project.  Nowadays, they're a pretty routine matter (as
an example, look at the conflict over global where the petitioners have
NMUed a newer version into experimental where this isn't really that big
a deal).

I believe our view of maintainership can change similarly if enough
people say «here are the keys to the kingd^Wpackage, please be
considerate», even for the packages which are not collectivised.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

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

#8933 — Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

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

Hi,

Quoting Ian Jackson (2016-12-05 23:04:48)
> Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers [and 1 more messages]"):
> > A similar proposal: Have a way of declaring the package to be under
> > collective maintenance (put it under collab-maint on alioth +
> > Maintainer: collective@debian.org or somesuch?)  That'd move closer to a
> > model where individuals don't own that particular package.

I very much like that idea.

What I currently find inconvenient about the LowThresholdNmu page is, that it
is external to the source package. So after having found a package I want to
fix I have to manually look up on that wiki page whether the maintainer is fine
with NMUs and if it applies to the source package at hand. It would be great if
that information could somehow live inside the source package.

People who would favor this approach probably already have their packaging SCM
in collab-maint or use dgit, so I'm more wondering about a good way of how to
encode this information in source packages themselves and what it means to put
it there.

Suppose, we'd just put something like collective@debian.org into the Maintainer
field. What would it actually mean? Would it be sufficient to mean that the
declarations from the LowThresholdNmu page apply? And would it have to be an
actually active email address? Would it maybe have to be like for team
maintained packages where an actual human address still has to be in the
Uploaders field? I also see some overlap with the packages@qa.debian.org value
for the Maintainer field.

> This is all very well and good, but frankly, Lars (and the others in this
> conversation) are not the problem.  The problem maintainers won't put
> themselves on a LowThresholdAdoption list either.
> 
> We already have ways of dealing with maintainers who are simply
> absent or busy, and not actively resisting.  Our processes for that
> are rather cumbersome but it is possible to use them effectively.
> 
> What we lack is a way of dealing with maintainers who are determined
> not to lose control of their packages.  (And I do mean "control".)

I think the thread has derailed here a little bit but I think that Lars and
Tollef are aware that their proposals are orthogonal to the problem you brought
up in your original message. I think this sub-thread is now about how to change
the culture in Debian to one where we are (even more) more encouraging towards
weak-ownership of packages. I took the liberty to adjust the subject line
accordingly.

Thanks!

cheers, josch

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

#8934 — Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 09:18:49AM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> What I currently find inconvenient about the LowThresholdNmu page is, that it
> is external to the source package. So after having found a package I want to
> fix I have to manually look up on that wiki page whether the maintainer is fine
> with NMUs and if it applies to the source package at hand.

I wouldn't even think of making a NMU without looking at the PTS, and that
page states "LowNMU" right to the maintainer's name.

-- 
u-boot problems can be solved with the help of your old SCSI manuals, the
parts that deal with goat termination.  You need a black-handled knife, and
an appropriate set of candles (number and color matters).  Or was it a
silver-handled knife?  Crap, need to look that up.

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

Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.project

csiph-web