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

#8945 — Re: 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

On Tue, Dec 06, 2016 at 04:15:22PM +0100, Johannes Schauer wrote:
> why would it be important to change that kind of information for a package in
> stable? The audience interested in this field is interested in uploads to
> unstable, so is it not sufficient if the information is up-to-date there?
 
no, it's a long standing problem: users look at packages in stable, so
it would be good to update the maintainer fields in stable too, without
going through reviewed uploads…

> What do you think?

Lars' desire to have maintainer information easily changable in stable is not
related to this thread. :)


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

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

#8947 — Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

* Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> [161206 10:10]:
> 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.

Note that this indication is just that, an indication. Various maintainers have
exceptions to which packages the LowNMU threshold applies, but the
PTS does not understand that.

Many maintainers also say something like "check with co-maintainers"
and then you end up in a circle, where all co-maintainers have that
exception listed ...

-- 
christian hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org>

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

#8935 — Re: Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)

Johannes Schauer writes ("Formal declaration of weak package ownership in source packages (was: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers)"):
> 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.

I (obviously) don't object to this.  But I would still like to see an
answer to the problem I originally posed.

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]

#8957

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…

I agree that motivation is important and different.  From my personal
point of view it does not matter who is named in the Maintainer field
but in the latest changelog field since this person has done recent
work.  To support this I frequently leave "Team uploads" of people who
did a slight contribution in a changelog with several people
contributing instead of simply using my Uploader hat to become changelog
owner.  So we have several packages uploaded by GSoC students who
contributed autopkgtests and these changelog owners are even prominently
displayed on the Debian Med tasks pages.
 
> 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.

I admit I do not mind about the name of the field as long as the
principle which Zack had in mind will be realised.  BTW, keeping the
Maintainer field as a mailing list address - and allow only mailing
lists there is another option.

Kind regards

      Andreas.

[1] Feel free to seek for "Canberk Koç" and "Tatiana Malygina" at
    https://blends.debian.org/med/tasks/bio

-- 
http://fam-tille.de

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

#8961

    Hi,

* Johannes Schauer <josch@debian.org> [2016-12-02 13:40:31 CET]:
> 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?

 Because it takes away the need to communicate with the maintainers and
respecting their view on the package and how it develops/is maintained.
It happened more than enough times for me personally in the past years
that people upload non-coordinated and not-communicated fixes that it
annoyed me enough to kill a fair amount of my motivation.  

 I've seen packaging reworks combined with "just a bug fix" also every
now and then and there is a reason for the list of what people shouldn't
do when they upload an NMU.  Going towards an abolished maintainership
area it will make it even less likely such needed communication with the
people feeling emotionally attached to the package to happen.  It's
already at the lower and every now and then that it hurts, and saying
there is no maintainership means that noone has to coordinate with
anyone anymore because ... well, there is no maintainer.

 So long,
Rhonda
-- 
Fühlst du dich mutlos, fass endlich Mut, los      |
Fühlst du dich hilflos, geh raus und hilf, los    | Wir sind Helden
Fühlst du dich machtlos, geh raus und mach, los   | 23.55: Alles auf Anfang
Fühlst du dich haltlos, such Halt und lass los    |

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

#8966

Rhonda D'Vine writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
>  Going towards an abolished maintainership
> area it will make it even less likely such needed communication with the
> people feeling emotionally attached to the package to happen.

This is a very good way of explaining the social reasons for retaining
something like maintainership.

>  It's already at the lower and every now and then that it hurts,

I think if one is very stubborn, and doesn't mind undoing other
people's work, etc., then maintainership is very strong.  If one cares
about doing what much the rest of the project says it wants,
maintainership is often quite weak.

This is not really a good combination.

Ideally maintainership would be strong for the maintainer who doesn't
like to argue much and who is easy to convince of true things, but
weak when used by a stubborn maintainer or one who communicates
poorly.

I have not much of an idea how to do that, but making _sole_
maintainership weaker is perhaps going in that direction.

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]

#8889

Stefano Zacchiroli writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> On Thu, Dec 01, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> > 3. Abolish maintainership entirely.
> 
> This is the obviously right solution.

Hey, I have an idea that maybe you will support, which takes us much
more in that direction and may reinvigorate our existing processes:

 DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS

 OPTION A

 1. Our priority is our users and free software.

 2. Debian maintainership is a position of power and responsibility.
    It is an earned position, which arises from work and leadership.
    Maintainership should continue so long as the good leadership
    continues.

 3. We give advice to the Technical Committee:

 4. The Technical Committee should consider all opinions and options
    based on their merits, not based on the authority of the speaker.

    The opinions of the current maintainer are as relevant as the
    opinions of other contributors, users, and other stakeholders.
    But they are no more relevant.

 5. Specifically, when making any decision with respect to a package,
    the TC should not pay attention to the formal maintainership
    status of the package.

    On the other hand, it is relevant to give more weight to a
    contributor who has a strong record of contributions to the
    package; shows depth and accuracy of knowledge about it; or has
    shown consistently good communication, stewardship and leadership.

 6. Our advice specifically includes decisions on who the maintainer
    should be, under Constitution 6.1(2), or whether to overrule the
    maintainer, under 6.1(4).

 7. The constitutional 3:1 majority is a sufficient safeguard against
    undue interference with the work of individual maintainers.

 OPTION B

 (1-6 as above)

 7. We amend the Constitution section 6.1(4) to remove the words
    "requires a 3:1 majority" and "this requires a 3:1 majority".

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]

#8896

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

On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 03:42:58PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>  DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS
> 
>  OPTION A
 
= "keep the status quo"

>  OPTION B

equals:
 
>  7. We amend the Constitution section 6.1(4) to remove the words
>     "requires a 3:1 majority" and "this requires a 3:1 majority".
 

is this a correct summary of this draft?

If so, I'd be intersted in current TC members position on this.


-- 
cheers,
	Holger

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

#8899

Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 03:42:58PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
> >  DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS
> > 
> >  OPTION A
>  
> = "keep the status quo"

AIUI, no.

Empirically, practice by the TC is to almost always uphold the
maintainer, and never to depose them.

At least one TC member has told me that if this GR text passed, they
would resign from the TC, because it would amount to a declaration of
lack of confidence in the TC.

Well, it is true that I have lack of confidence in the TC.  But I
don't want the TC members to resign and be replaced.  My lack of
confidence is in the TC as an institution; as a framework; or as a
cultural/political practice.  I don't have a problem with the
individuals.

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]

#8901

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

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Holger Levsen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2016 at 03:42:58PM +0000, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> >  DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS
>> > 
>> >  OPTION A
>>  
>> = "keep the status quo"
>
> AIUI, no.
>
> Empirically, practice by the TC is to almost always uphold the
> maintainer, and never to depose them.
>
> At least one TC member has told me that if this GR text passed, they
> would resign from the TC, because it would amount to a declaration of
> lack of confidence in the TC.

For the avoidance of doubt, that was me, here:

  https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2016/12/msg00012.html

The point being that if the project decided not only to go to the effort
of having a vote, but to actually vote in favour of this NOOP, it would
very strongly imply that the TC had lost the trust of the project.  (You
don't send a duplicate copy of someone's contract of employment, with
some added micro-management clauses, to someone that's doing a good job).

We cannot perform our function without the project's trust, so of course
I'd resign if that happened -- not that I consider that likely, but then
again this is 2016 ... anything might happen. ;-)

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

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

#8902

Philip Hands writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> this NOOP,

I'm very surprised to see you say that you think this is a no-op.

ISTM that in the current argument, the TC has given the position of
the existing maintainer great weight.

Imagine the roles were replaced.  Imagine the actual petitioners (P
and W, for the same of argument) were the current maintainers, and the
actual current maintainer (R) were a petitioner saying "please make me
the maintainer".  Would the TC would spend months debating before
dismissing such a manifestly unfounded petition ?

As I've said I genuinely find the TC's behaviour incomprehensible.
But this is not limited to this TC; all previous TCs have had similar
issues (from my point of view).  As I say the TC members are all smart
and good people so I don't think the problem can be changed by a
change of personell.  I definitely don't want you to resign.

Can you explain why the TC is so reluctant to depose or overrule
maintainers ?

Ian.

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

#8913

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

Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:

> Philip Hands writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
>> this NOOP,
>
> I'm very surprised to see you say that you think this is a no-op.
>
> ISTM that in the current argument, the TC has given the position of
> the existing maintainer great weight.
>
> Imagine the roles were replaced.  Imagine the actual petitioners (P
> and W, for the same of argument) were the current maintainers, and the
> actual current maintainer (R) were a petitioner saying "please make me
> the maintainer".  Would the TC would spend months debating before
> dismissing such a manifestly unfounded petition ?

Ah, that's what you mean -- that's not what your GR said though, as far
as I could tell.

The way I read it is that we should not give special status to the
arguments presented based on the maintainer status of the person putting
forward those arguments.

You now appear to be saying that we should not consider maintainership
to be in any sense sticky, and should instead assume that the package is
orphaned when it's presented to the TC, and assign the maintainership as
if we're blind to its history at the end of the process.

Those seem like barely related positions, and the latter is nothing to
do with what you wrote in the draft GR.

> As I've said I genuinely find the TC's behaviour incomprehensible.
> But this is not limited to this TC; all previous TCs have had similar
> issues (from my point of view).  As I say the TC members are all smart
> and good people so I don't think the problem can be changed by a
> change of personell.  I definitely don't want you to resign.
>
> Can you explain why the TC is so reluctant to depose or overrule
> maintainers ?

I have been pondering this since you raised it.

There is research to show that groups of people tend to express opinions
as a group that are more extreme than the centre of gravity of the
opinions of the individuals.

It seems it happens because people tend to assume that the centre of
opinion is further along whatever spectrum one is talking about than
they are personally, and so adjust their expressed opinions to match,
and thus everyone's perception of the centre drifts further in that
direction.

I wonder if the TC does this in the dimension of something like
reasonableness, patience, politeness, conciliation, or some such

I suspect that if I'd been acting alone in a situation where I was only
answerable to myself that cases would have been dealt with in one
exchange of mails.  ;-)

I'm not sure how one might fix that, but it's not going to be by adding
extra rules and metrics that one is expected to measure one's
performance against.  That would just add another thing to think about
instead of acting.

Add to that the fact that the individuals involved all tend to be
sporadically busy and the discussion ends up running at the pace of the
person that can give it the least time, which also militates against
decisive action.

Even if the obvious action is to replace the maintainer, that would
always do more good if done instantly than after a pause of months, but
that's pretty-much impossible to achieve via a group of busy volunteers.
Once months have gone by, the situation normally becomes less clear-cut,
because one has already lost the benefit of a snap decision.

I don't think any of that is particularly unique to the TC, and would
equally apply to anything that you might be tempted to replace it with
(unless the replacement were a single individual, or an algorithm).

Cheers, Phil.
-- 
|)|  Philip Hands  [+44 (0)20 8530 9560]  HANDS.COM Ltd.
|-|  http://www.hands.com/    http://ftp.uk.debian.org/
|(|  Hugo-Klemm-Strasse 34,   21075 Hamburg,    GERMANY

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

#8919

]] Ian Jackson 

> Imagine the roles were replaced.  Imagine the actual petitioners (P
> and W, for the same of argument) were the current maintainers, and the
> actual current maintainer (R) were a petitioner saying "please make me
> the maintainer".  Would the TC would spend months debating before
> dismissing such a manifestly unfounded petition ?

That's a very hypothetical question which is hard to answer without more
context of what P and W had done lately in terms of maintaining the
package.

> Can you explain why the TC is so reluctant to depose or overrule
> maintainers ?

Because I generally find it's generally the wrong tool for the job.  If
I can come up with a good explanation for why somebody should take a
particular course of action (which I need before I'm willing to override
anybody), and I take the time to explain it to them and discuss with
them, I find we usually end up agreeing.

The goal is not to end up with a new maintainer.  Deposing a maintainer
or overriding them is sometimes a necessary evil, but it's never my
first option.

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

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

#8925

Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> Because I generally find it's generally the wrong tool for the job.  If
> I can come up with a good explanation for why somebody should take a
> particular course of action (which I need before I'm willing to override
> anybody), and I take the time to explain it to them and discuss with
> them, I find we usually end up agreeing.

That is of course mostly true of disagreements.

But it is not mostly true of problems which come to the TC.

Of course sometimes the TC will find that getting people to explain
themselves clearly will cause the dispute to evaporate.  I remember
that happening about twice during my term.  But it's easy to tell
when this happens because both parties go away happy and say they
don't need the TC's help any more.

> The goal is not to end up with a new maintainer.  Deposing a maintainer
> or overriding them is sometimes a necessary evil, but it's never my
> first option.

Surely the goal should be to make Debian as good a social and
technical space as possible.

If the maintainer is exercising poor leadership - poor enough that
someone has risked coming to the TC with it - then that goal is best
served by replacing them.

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]

#8927

On Monday, December 05, 2016 10:02:02 PM Ian Jackson wrote:
> Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> > Because I generally find it's generally the wrong tool for the job.  If
> > I can come up with a good explanation for why somebody should take a
> > particular course of action (which I need before I'm willing to override
> > anybody), and I take the time to explain it to them and discuss with
> > them, I find we usually end up agreeing.
> 
> That is of course mostly true of disagreements.
> 
> But it is not mostly true of problems which come to the TC.
> 
> Of course sometimes the TC will find that getting people to explain
> themselves clearly will cause the dispute to evaporate.  I remember
> that happening about twice during my term.  But it's easy to tell
> when this happens because both parties go away happy and say they
> don't need the TC's help any more.
> 
> > The goal is not to end up with a new maintainer.  Deposing a maintainer
> > or overriding them is sometimes a necessary evil, but it's never my
> > first option.
> 
> Surely the goal should be to make Debian as good a social and
> technical space as possible.
> 
> If the maintainer is exercising poor leadership - poor enough that
> someone has risked coming to the TC with it - then that goal is best
> served by replacing them.

Nonsense.  There's no risk for a non-maintainer to come to the TC.  Worst case 
scenario for the non-maintainer is the status quo.  The maintainer, on the 
other hand, has everything to lose and nothing to gain.

The one time I was peripherally involved in one of these it was long, painful, 
and no one got what they wanted, but some things did change and Debian is the 
better for the changes (I think they would have happened without the TC 
escalation, but that's a counter factual that can't be proven).

In my admittedly limited experience, the worst possible thing the TC could 
have done was make a rapid decision.

Scott K 

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

#8929

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> Nonsense.  There's no risk for a non-maintainer to come to the TC.

A non-maintainer who comes to the TC:

 * Is very likely to find that already unpleasant situation, gets
   emotionally worse, at least temporarily;

 * Is probably interested in the package in question, and so risks
   their future contributions being devalued or ignored;

 * Is probably an advanced user of the package and may be dependent on
   the package (to some degree or other) continuing to support their
   use cases rather than the maintainer letting them rot or even
   sabotaging them;

 * Is likely to worry that they will gain enemies.

These are distinctly nontrivial risks.  Most of the risks are social
in some sense.  Some of them are practical.  They will put off most
petitioners, given that the likelihood of the TC escalation being
useful to them is very small.

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]

#8930

On Monday, December 05, 2016 11:18:41 PM Ian Jackson wrote:
> Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> > Nonsense.  There's no risk for a non-maintainer to come to the TC.
> 
> A non-maintainer who comes to the TC:
> 
>  * Is very likely to find that already unpleasant situation, gets
>    emotionally worse, at least temporarily;
> 
>  * Is probably interested in the package in question, and so risks
>    their future contributions being devalued or ignored;
> 
>  * Is probably an advanced user of the package and may be dependent on
>    the package (to some degree or other) continuing to support their
>    use cases rather than the maintainer letting them rot or even
>    sabotaging them;
> 
>  * Is likely to worry that they will gain enemies.
> 
> These are distinctly nontrivial risks.  Most of the risks are social
> in some sense.  Some of them are practical.  They will put off most
> petitioners, given that the likelihood of the TC escalation being
> useful to them is very small.

Having been involved in one of these things even as a maintainer of a package 
that was not directly the target of the request to the TC was extremely 
trying.  It was by a large margin the second most unpleasant and stressful 
free software experience I've had even though the TC, in the end, supported 
the existing maintainers.

If it came up again, I'd probably just orphan the package immediately rather 
than deal with the process again.  That's how awful it is from the side you 
claim is all empowered.  The non-maintainer risks are trivial in comparison to 
the maintainer who risks having their volunteer work for Debian thrown away 
and the virtual certainty that they were not going to be able to contribute 
any more to a package they thought was important enough to put time and  
effort into.

I don't expect you to agree, but if anything, I see all the advantage with the 
non-maintainers.  I'm glad the TC has my back (and I'm sure if I screw 
something up badly enough, they'll help me see it).

Scott K

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

#8937

Scott Kitterman writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> Having been involved in one of these things even as a maintainer of
> a package that was not directly the target of the request to the TC
> was extremely trying.  [etc.]

Thanks for sharing your experience.  I know that's something that
sounds like a formula that people say, but I really really mean it.

> I don't expect you to agree,

I don't feel I can disagree with your report of your experience.  And,
going back and looking at the report for the bug, I can see why you
feel the way you do.  Some of your messages in that bug log make quite
cogent arguments.

I haven't changed my mind that the problem of difficult maintainers
desperately needs a solution.  And I haven't really changed my mind
about what the TC should do in the current case.

But I feel you have significantly shifted my view about what should be
done about the general problem; or, alternatively, about how these
things should be dealt with in the future.

I'm more towards the view now that the TC framework/process simply
cannot deal with these problems in a just way.

I am going to write a separate mail in a different bit of the
subthread, with some different ideas you have prompted me to think of.

Regards,
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]

#8932

]] Ian Jackson

There's no need to Cc me on replies, I'm subscribed already.

> Tollef Fog Heen writes ("Re: Replace the TC power to depose maintainers"):
> > Because I generally find it's generally the wrong tool for the job.  If
> > I can come up with a good explanation for why somebody should take a
> > particular course of action (which I need before I'm willing to override
> > anybody), and I take the time to explain it to them and discuss with
> > them, I find we usually end up agreeing.
> 
> That is of course mostly true of disagreements.
> 
> But it is not mostly true of problems which come to the TC.
> 
> Of course sometimes the TC will find that getting people to explain
> themselves clearly will cause the dispute to evaporate.  I remember
> that happening about twice during my term.  But it's easy to tell
> when this happens because both parties go away happy and say they
> don't need the TC's help any more.

That's not my experience.  They'll go away grumbling because they both
had to make some sort of concession(s).  The goal of the current dispute
isn't to get global a new maintainer.  It's to ensure the package is of
as good quality in Stretch and beyond.  This is balanced by the goal of
not making too many people too sad or annoyed, not taking on lots of
technical debt or crazy design decision and so on.

> > The goal is not to end up with a new maintainer.  Deposing a maintainer
> > or overriding them is sometimes a necessary evil, but it's never my
> > first option.
> 
> Surely the goal should be to make Debian as good a social and
> technical space as possible.

I didn't say what the goal was, I pointed out what it was not.

> If the maintainer is exercising poor leadership - poor enough that
> someone has risked coming to the TC with it - then that goal is best
> served by replacing them.

Based on that argument, the TC should just rubberstamp all appeals and
always grant them, which is surely not what you mean.  Also what ScottK
writes about being «on trial» (which is what it feels like) as quite
uncomfortable for the maintainer.

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

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

#8904

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

Le vendredi, 2 décembre 2016, 15.42:58 h CET Ian Jackson a écrit :
> Hey, I have an idea that maybe you will support, which takes us much
> more in that direction and may reinvigorate our existing processes:
> 
>  DRAFT GENERAL RESOLUTION STARTS

As a general comment, I am in discomfort with GR proposals which have too much 
preamble and context as part of the decision. Specifically…

>  OPTION A
> 
>  1. Our priority is our users and free software.
> 
>  2. Debian maintainership is a position of power and responsibility.
>     It is an earned position, which arises from work and leadership.
>     Maintainership should continue so long as the good leadership
>     continues.

These two points should be in an argumentary in favour of the actual GR, and 
not in the GR text. Having the body of developers "emit" that kind of wording 
(not that I disagree with it…) opens the door to later interpretations, debate 
about wording, etc. It's uneeded for a GR to re-state that our priority is our 
users and free software. We have it a foundation document, and re-stating it 
out of the blue is doing more harm than good, IMHO.

>  3. We give advice to the Technical Committee:

Giving "wildcard advice" about maintainership, as output of a discussion 
triggered by "I think the TC will not decide my way", _before_ the TC is just 
about to take a decision about maintainership, would (as Phil eloquently put 
it) imply that the project is not trusting the TC and its members to exercise 
the powers and duties as defined in the constitution.

Would that GR pass, I would most probably resign from the TC.

That said… the TC's constitutional mandate _is_ up for discussion, it always 
was, and should always be. It's entirely fine to discuss how the project wants 
to distribute its powers and duties internally. But if one wants to address 
how maintainership is handled, emitting a no-op GR giving advice to the TC 
members is the wrong hammer for that nail, I think.

>  4. The Technical Committee should consider all opinions and options
>     based on their merits, not based on the authority of the speaker.

This wording assumes that the TC currently isn't (same goes for further 
articles.

>  OPTION B
> 
>  (1-6 as above)
> 
>  7. We amend the Constitution section 6.1(4) to remove the words
>     "requires a 3:1 majority" and "this requires a 3:1 majority".

A GR doing that (amending the constitution to lower the TC majority needed 
when overruling a developer), and only that, would be a strong message from 
the project upon the importance it gives to maintainership and developers' 
decisions. I'm not decided whether I like that specific idea or not, but I 
certainly feel that such a GR would be much less paternalizing to the TC and 
its members than any flavour of your Option A.

-- 
Cheers,
    OdyX

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

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

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

csiph-web