On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 07:42:58PM +0100, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > IMHO, Debian has a serious double-problem here and needs to attack it. > ftp-masters should, as I understand the role, be a purely administrative > function: keep the archive running. No policy decisions should be made by > ftp-masters. > > In that light, fully automatic NEW processing will not hurt at all (I agree > that a delay of a few days is sensible to give us time to react to the > worst problem cases.)
Unfortunately reality isn't so simple. In practice, the ftp-masters have also become the review point for new packages. We *need* new packages reviewing just to filter out some of the worst of the stupid from the archive; frankly we need more than just new packages reviewing. However, splitting that task out would probably be a good idea. > Ok, that's the easy technical bit that gets rid of manual NEW processing > alltogether. Now, the second question: How do we tell what should be > included in Debian and what not? > > There is no obvious answer. So the project has to decide on some arbitrary > standards - but I think it has been proven that decisions on a case by case > basis does not work - the pr0n debate comes up regularly, and as soon as > that's started somebody drags religion and politics into it and we have a > 300-mails thread. Well, that's mostly because religion and politics are the only reasons people ever object to 'pr0n' in the first place :P But since those would exclude so much of the archive already, they really can't be allowed as criteria. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
