https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064979
Would some of you who are pushing so hard to change the policy for
Uploaders/ Maintainer in the team please step up and take over this
package. It really needs updated to the new upstream release (blocking
both aioquic and dnspythong for me, I don't know about others).
I haven't done a comprehensive check, but I think morph asked for all the leaf packages he was maintaining in the team to be removed from the archive and is removing himself from uploaders/maintainer on others.
You all made this mess. Please clean it up.
On Wednesday, March 13, 2024 1:34:14 PM EDT Scott Kitterman wrote:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064979
Would some of you who are pushing so hard to change the policy for Uploaders/ Maintainer in the team please step up and take over this package. It really needs updated to the new upstream release (blocking both aioquic and dnspythong for me, I don't know about others).
I haven't done a comprehensive check, but I think morph asked for all the leaf packages he was maintaining in the team to be removed from the archive and is removing himself from uploaders/maintainer on others.
You all made this mess. Please clean it up.
Actually, it looks like python-cryptography still has one uploader, but morph was doing work on the package, it's complicated,
and could use more help, not
less. Pyopenssl, on the other hand, is now unmaintained (no human uploader).
On 3/13/24 18:34, Scott Kitterman wrote:very much regret things are happening this way, but I don't think the rest of the team should be held responsible.
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064979
Would some of you who are pushing so hard to change the policy for Uploaders/
Maintainer in the team please step up and take over this package. It really >> needs updated to the new upstream release (blocking both aioquic and
dnspythong for me, I don't know about others).
I haven't done a comprehensive check, but I think morph asked for all the leaf
packages he was maintaining in the team to be removed from the archive and is
removing himself from uploaders/maintainer on others.
You all made this mess. Please clean it up.
Absolutely not. Sandro did. There's btw absolutely no reason to declare a package as "orphan" if it is supposed to be team maintained. It's also a very bad behavior to do this silently, without telling the team about it, or taking part of the thread. I
If you have the list of the packages matching what you are saying, please do share.
On 3/14/24 08:52, Andreas Tille wrote:
I would have prefered to
read constructive arguments instead of silent leaving the team (in the
sense of not informing the team mailing list about the leave).
Me too. But I'm not surprised.
On 3/15/24 13:52, Scott Kitterman wrote:discussion, so I don't know why he handled it the way he did, but I can easily imagine he was quite frustrated.
On March 15, 2024 7:19:16 AM UTC, Thomas Goirand <zigo@debian.org> wrote: >>> On 3/14/24 08:52, Andreas Tille wrote:
I would have prefered to
read constructive arguments instead of silent leaving the team (in the >>>> sense of not informing the team mailing list about the leave).
Me too. But I'm not surprised.
I didn't have a list, I'm glad someone went through and made one.
Yes, he might have handled his departure from the team differently, but I found the entire discussion about changing the team policy on setting the maintainer very off putting. I haven't talked to him about it beyond making sure he was aware of the
Frankly, I think statements like the above aren't particularly consistent with the project CoC and have me thinking again about if this is the kind of team I care to be involved with.
Which part? The one where I am saying that I'm not surprised? That in no way should be taken badly, or as an attack on him. Let me explain then.
I too, would prefer if Sandro didn't leave, even if I had difficult moments when communicating with him. I stated it already, I did appreciate his contribution to the team, and to the project at large.
Though it's a fact that I was not surprised, because you mentioned it. We knew in advance it could happen. Looking backward, it seems it was inevitable, unfortunately.
I'd be very sad to see you go as well, please stay.
While the way he left the team is on him, the fact that it even came up is 100% on the people pushing this change.
I do not agree. It came up because what it was generating (frustration, flames about "rogue uploads", you name it...) had to be addressed.
On 3/13/24 18:34, Scott Kitterman wrote:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1064979
Would some of you who are pushing so hard to change the policy forUploaders/
Maintainer in the team please step up and take over this package. Itreally
needs updated to the new upstream release (blocking both aioquic and dnspythong for me, I don't know about others).
I haven't done a comprehensive check, but I think morph asked for allthe leaf
packages he was maintaining in the team to be removed from the archiveand is
removing himself from uploaders/maintainer on others.
You all made this mess. Please clean it up.
Absolutely not. Sandro did. There's btw absolutely no reason to declare
a package as "orphan" if it is supposed to be team maintained. It's also
a very bad behavior to do this silently, without telling the team about
it, or taking part of the thread. I very much regret things are
happening this way, but I don't think the rest of the team should be
held responsible.
If you have the list of the packages matching what you are saying,
please do share.
On 3/14/24 08:52, Andreas Tille wrote:
I would have prefered to
read constructive arguments instead of silent leaving the team (in the sense of not informing the team mailing list about the leave).
Me too. But I'm not surprised.
Cheers,
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 350 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 09:18:08 |
Calls: | 7,625 |
Files: | 12,793 |
Messages: | 5,686,482 |