On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:28:04AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive
> > and that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual
> > files is unnecessar
> What I don't get from your text is: are you aware of the extra reviews
> on a per-package basis, or you just noticed that tose packages are
> usually OK and then discovered that the reasons are extra reviews?
Noticed after lotsa uploads. The reasons I guess from the little i know
about the grou
> This, however, sounds like a good reason for few application. You are
> basically requesting people, most likely already involved in Debian
> and doing that in their spare time, to have to offer 5-10 additional
> hours per week, to know as much programming languages as possible, and
> (IIRC) to
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 02:04:34AM +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.
> Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
> checking the copyright file.
He's right that binary NEW is not t
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:37:30PM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> This is how I see the process right now, from the applicant's POV:
>
Actually it is:
> - Applicant applies
> - DD advocates
> (wait1)
- FD ask NM what they do in Debian? [1] Currently, this is a email sent
manually.
-
Le Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:17:15PM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit :
>
> I was wondering whether we could, for instance, sign with different
> keys a NEW upload to notify FTP masters about the number of people
> which reviewed a given package to give you "hints" (of course
> according to the rep
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Something is definitely wrong here, IMHO.
Maybe it's your assumption or assertion that the only point of NEW is
checking the copyright file.
--
| .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux **
Peter Palfrader | : :' : The
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 11790 March 1977, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
>>> In my experience, package splits go through in a week or two except in
>>> rare situations. That never seemed like a difficult wait to me.
>> Ack. Same for adding debug packages and similar things like soname bumps.
>
> Those
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 25/06/09 at 22:37 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> > [...]
> > - DAM reviews the application
> > (wait4)
> > - DAM creates the account
> > - Key added to the keyring
> > - Shell access to developer machines
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > - I don't k
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Nothing at all blocks you from asking for reviews from other
> maintainers. Do it, PLEASE DO IT. The more people that do it, the
> less the rejects we have to do in NEW, the less the size of NEW. You
> do not need to redefine anything
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:47:16PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Stop whining, volunteer to do the work. ftpmaster did ask a *lot* of
> times for volunteers to help with that. What we got have been a handful
> of people only. Some dropped out due to lack of knowledge, most to lack
> of time. As of
On 25/06/09 at 22:37 +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> [...]
> - DAM reviews the application
> (wait4)
> - DAM creates the account
> - Key added to the keyring
> - Shell access to developer machines
>
> [...]
>
> - I don't know why there is wait4. I guess it's because DAM members process
>
Hi all,
This is how I see the process right now, from the applicant's POV:
- Applicant applies
- DD advocates
(wait1)
- AM assigned
- Work with the AM (P&P, T&S and whatever is needed)
- AM sends report
(wait2)
- FD checks the application
(wait3)
- DAM reviews the application
(wait4)
- DA
> I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> useful tool.
Correct, noone is forced to use the templates. There are some questions
you *must* have, but thats a handful. All the rest is up to the AM.
> I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction in other
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 03:46:50PM +0100, Matthew Johnson wrote:
> On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> > I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
> > templated questions. I felt that all I was doing was shooting enormous
> I didn't think that using the templates
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:36:15PM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:21:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> > > useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
> > > in other way
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:21:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > I didn't think that using the templates was required for AMs, merely a
> > useful tool. I think AMs should be able to check to their satisfaction
> > in other ways as appropriate, as long as it produces a similar result
> > (you are
Matthew Johnson writes:
> On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
>> I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
>> templated questions. I felt that all I was doing was shooting
>> enormous reams of paperwork at applicants which I didn't really felt
>> helped with anythin
"Giacomo A. Catenazzi" writes:
> Is it so difficult that a cronjob will call two scripts and merge the
> results in a single mail?
I think it would be inappropriate to send public notices about retiring
maintainers without their explicit permission. In some cases, they may
be retiring for reaso
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:35:30AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Mike Hommey wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the li
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> FWIW, I consider listing files in DEP5-style an advantage in complex
> packages because it helps out in checking for the completeness of your
> license/copyright review. Yes, it is more work, but you gain that you
> can check whether a given source file has been forgo
Steve Langasek writes:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> I think, and I believe the ftpmasters would agree, that they will
>> enforce project consensus provided that it doesn't strike them as
>> legally dangerous or otherwise seriously problematic. I would rather
On Thu, 2009-06-25 at 18:11 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 25/06/09 at 17:45 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > > I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
> > > sure that they would be perfectly ready t
On Thu, 25 Jun 2009, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:13:55PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > 1. There is precisely one mail (ITP bug from November) from 2007 in
> >the lists.d.o archive and he was advocated in January 2008.
>
> I think it would be nice to have [...] replies
On 25/06/09 at 17:45 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
> > sure that they would be perfectly ready to be a DD by the end of the NM
> > process (i.e a year and a half
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 02:43:53PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> I said that I considered some people ready to start NM, because I was
> sure that they would be perfectly ready to be a DD by the end of the NM
> process (i.e a year and a half later, basically), and that they would be
> good NM appl
> On Tue Jun 23 11:30, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > - the NM process could be reduced to 5 to 10 questions choosen by the
> >AM amongst the 50+ questions currently in the NM templates, to verify
> > that the applicant has some knowledge about different aspects of Debian
> > packaging. Then the AM
Some new developers were missing from the list:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 16:47:27 +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> This is the last mail in a short series providing an overview of people
> who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
> project on this list before.
>
> Becaus
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> This is the second mail in a short series providing an overview of
> people who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been
> welcomed to the project on this list before.
I just see I missed Barry deFreese in this overview.
Welcome!
Septembe
This is the last mail in a short series providing an overview of people
who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
project on this list before.
Because this was some time ago, I'm not including the short introductions
normally found in these mails. Instead there is a
On Thu Jun 25 13:23, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:12PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>
> > The NM process should neither be pain for the NM nor for the AM. If it is
> > I'm
> > happy to hear the facts why it is pain, instead of useless babbling.
>
> I stopped being an AM large
This is the second mail in a short series providing an overview of people
who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
project on this list before.
Because this was all quite long ago, I'm not including the short
introductions normally found in these mails. Instead the
This is the first mail in a short series providing an overview of people
who became Debian Developer in the past but have not been welcomed to the
project on this list before.
The overview starts after the last "New Maintainers" mail sent by Mohammed
Adnène Trojette in February 2007 [1].
Because t
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:34:12PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> The NM process should neither be pain for the NM nor for the AM. If it is I'm
> happy to hear the facts why it is pain, instead of useless babbling.
I stopped being an AM largely as a result of the introduction of the
templated ques
On 25/06/09 at 12:29 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:58:22PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> > On 23/06/09 at 22:35 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > > This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> > > > I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:58:22PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 23/06/09 at 22:35 +0100, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > This one time, at band camp, Lucas Nussbaum said:
> > > I've been advocating people "too early" (i.e, I've advocated people so
> > > that they could start NM, while in the meantime,
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> New maintainers usually write info about themselves during a first part of
> working with AM, and this info is also included in the AM report.
Yeah, but that might be outdated by the time they actually become
developers; when I
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:13:55PM +0200, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> 1. There is precisely one mail (ITP bug from November) from 2007 in
>the lists.d.o archive and he was advocated in January 2008.
I think it would be nice to have svn.d.o/git.d.o commits and replies to
bug reports available as w
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:59AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> In the former case FTP masters are wasting their time, in the latter
> case their role is indeed useful to "defend" our mirror tenants, but
> then copyright reviews must be *intensified*.
I would prefer a more real-time mirrorin
On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> /me wonders whatever happened to those nice mails listing new DDs that
> used to be sent out periodically
To cut this discussion short, I hereby volunteer to send out the "New
Maintainer" overviews. I'll probably rename them to "New Debian
Developer"
On 25/06/09 at 11:24 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin
> wrote:
> > Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > >>> No nee
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 12:01:40PM +0300, Eugene V. Lyubimkin
wrote:
> Steve McIntyre wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >>> No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're in
Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15:35AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
>> I'd include their short biography (a few lines) that is sent to -newmaint.
>
> The whole point of this exercise is that the short biography cannot be
> automated, so it takes too much time from FD t
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:15:35AM +0200, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >>> Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
> >>> congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subje
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:52:59AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
>In the former case FTP masters are wasting their time, in the latter
>case their role is indeed useful to "defend" our mirror tenants, but
>then copyright reviews must be *intensified*.
>
>Have we ever asked SPI lawyers about wh
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 10:35:30AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> Mike Hommey wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> >> Don Armstrong wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included i
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:00:59PM +0200, Julien BLACHE wrote:
> Frans Pop wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> > I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at least
> > send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been accepted in the
> > project during the past x months?
>
> I th
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
>>> congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
>>> this mail to congratulate them?)
>> I'd be happy to modify the cronjob
Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Mike Hommey wrote:
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
Don Armstrong wrote:
On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...)
Steve McIntyre wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>> No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're interested,
>>> that's why the AM report is posted there. Definitely I'm not goin
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
> > Would it be enough to just have a special automated mail
> > congratulating new developers on -newmaint (or modify the subject of
> > this mail to congratulate them?)
>
> I'd be happy to modify the cronjob to send such mails to -pr
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 08:23:49PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> And how do you know that the due diligence Debian shows in seeking
> to avoid distribution of software in violation of copyright isn't
> the *reason* that Debian has avoided being sued?
We don't know, but it's guesswork in both sens
On Thursday 25 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:23:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > I can appreciate that, but is it unreasonable to expect the FD to at
> > least send a simple overview (list of names) of who have been
> > accepted in the project during the past x mont
Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 01:32:14AM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>> Don Armstrong wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Jun 2009, Steve Langasek wrote:
Ok - then I guess my problem is that the list of names included in
these is so non-notable (and is empty most weeks anyway...) that it
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:23:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Wednesday 24 June 2009, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > The second type, the one I believe Frans is referring to, is sent
> > manually. It takes a lot of work and effort to create it (looking up
> > the required information, copying and pas
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 07:42:15AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 10:48:42PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz wrote:
>>
>> No need for that. Read debian-newmaint for a summary if you're interested,
>> that's why the AM report is posted there. Definitely I'm not going to ask our
>> AMs to d
On 2009-06-25, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Cf. <87ofiygrkx@tacitus.systems> for the explanation of how NEW got the
> way it is (with rationale), as well as
><20010909160205.b8...@azure.humbug.org.au> on debian-private (9 Sep 2001)
> and the debian-private list archives for July 2001 for more infor
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 02:37:42PM +0200, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> The FD's responsibility, as a 'New Maintainer Front Desk', is to
> ensure that the new maintainer process runs smoothly, and to take a
> bit of the grunt work off of the DAM. If stuff passes front desk,
> it's assumed that it'll pas
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 06:02:11PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I think it's clear from the copyright files already in the archive
> and that are accepted daily by ftpmaster that listing the individual
> files is unnecessary if you have all of the licenses accounted for
> (and potentially copyright
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 11:16:46AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Or, more importantly, an actual consistent policy (with rationale) from
> > the ftpmasters to say what they require.
> I think, and I believe the ftpmasters would agree, that they will
> enforce project consensus provided that it do
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 02:47:11PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> Debian has never been sued for distributing software it didn't have the
> right to distribute in its archive (despite having distributed such
> software in the past), and you are afraid of allowing DDs to download
> the content of th
61 matches
Mail list logo
