Proposal: have NM and DM sign a package maintainer pledge

[Raphael Hertzog-3]

Hello,

I would like that all future package maintainers sign the following
pledge during their acceptance process. It tries to define a minimal
and common set of expectations among all package maintainers. This
draft has been reviewed by several DD in the trip back from Debconf
and I think it's quite good already. Once it's good enough, I'd welcome
DAM/FD/DM-team to ensure that each person that is granted upload rights
has signed this text.

----
As a package maintainer, I will do my best to help the Debian project
release a stable version of our operating system. In particular, I will
work together with the release team and I will keep all packages
associated to my name free of release critical bugs. To this effect, if
I'm not registered as being busy or in vacation, I will start working on
my release critical bugs as soon as possible (in less than 1 week in
common cases). If I can't deal with them in a timely fashion, I will state
it clearly in the associated bug reports, tag them help and invite other
contributors either to provide a patch or to do a non-maintainer upload.

If I do not manage to handle release critical bugs in the above described
way, or if I almost never deal with any of my RC bugs by myself, I will:
• not refuse help and even propose co-maintainance to good contributors
• recognize my failure and actively try to find a new maintainer and/or
  co-maintainers
• not complain if the quality assurance team decides to orphan the package

I recognize that my work is not limited to unstable. I will also work with
the stable release team and the security team to provide updated packages
for the stable and/or testing distribution when some issues deserve it.

I am aware of the limits of my skills and my available time and I will
avoid packaging software that I would not be able to maintain properly.
----

Comments welcome.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:41:25PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I would like that all future package maintainers sign the following
> pledge during their acceptance process. It tries to define a minimal

Nice initiative, thanks.

> ----
> As a package maintainer, I will do my best to help the Debian project
> release a stable version of our operating system. In particular, I will
> work together with the release team and I will keep all packages
> associated to my name free of release critical bugs.

I'd rephrase this last sentence as "... and I will do my best to keep
all packages ...". IOW you should ask applicants to state their
"guarantee of invested efforts" rather than "guarantee of result"
(nobody can give the latter, everybody should give the former).

> Comments welcome.

Beside the above wording remark, I've a problem with the first part of
the pledge: it is too limited in scope.

The Release Team, routinely before releases, complaints (rightful!) that
too few people work on RC bug which are not "theirs". The current NM
process, IMHO, does not stress enough the fact that being a DD is also
about something more than your own packages.

I would add to the pledge a statement that, once your packages are in
good condition, you should look forward to fix RC bugs in other
packages. If we agree that this should be part of the pledge text, I can
draft a corresponding sentence.

Cheers.

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

[Michael Banck]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 12:41:25PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> As a package maintainer, I will do my best to help the Debian project
> release a stable version of our operating system. In particular, I will
> work together with the release team and I will keep all packages
> associated to my name free of release critical bugs. To this effect, if
> I'm not registered as being busy or in vacation, I will start working on
> my release critical bugs as soon as possible (in less than 1 week in
> common cases). If I can't deal with them in a timely fashion, I will state
> it clearly in the associated bug reports, tag them help and invite other
> contributors either to provide a patch or to do a non-maintainer upload.
>
> If I do not manage to handle release critical bugs in the above described
> way, or if I almost never deal with any of my RC bugs by myself, I will:
> ??? not refuse help and even propose co-maintainance to good contributors
> ??? recognize my failure and actively try to find a new maintainer and/or
>   co-maintainers
> ??? not complain if the quality assurance team decides to orphan the package
>
> I recognize that my work is not limited to unstable. I will also work with
> the stable release team and the security team to provide updated packages
> for the stable and/or testing distribution when some issues deserve it.
>
> I am aware of the limits of my skills and my available time and I will
> avoid packaging software that I would not be able to maintain properly.

To be honest, I think it goes into way too much detail about how RC bugs
should get handled.  Of course, RC bugs are important, but if we
introduce something like this, it seems a bit blown out of proportion.

What about trying to work gracefully with other members of the Debian
community, as well as upstream and downstream developers?  What about
treating our users respectfully?  What about striving to be excellent in
your packaging?

This looks like a missed opportunity to me.

If we are just worried about RC bugs (or RC bugs as result of overworked
developers), I think we can handle this just fine right now (NMUs
followed by forced orphaning from QA in coordination with the DAM).


Michael


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Leo "costela" Antunes]

Hi

Raphael Hertzog wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I would like that all future package maintainers sign the following
> pledge during their acceptance process. It tries to define a minimal
> and common set of expectations among all package maintainers. This
> draft has been reviewed by several DD in the trip back from Debconf
> and I think it's quite good already. Once it's good enough, I'd welcome
> DAM/FD/DM-team to ensure that each person that is granted upload rights
> has signed this text.
>

(...)

>
> Comments welcome.

While I mostly agree with the wording and the spirit of such a text, I
fear it might add little to the existing necessary reading (policy,
devref, etc) and be seen by those reading ans signing as merely one more
bureaucratic hoop to jump through.

Do you imagine it being enforced in any specific way? Or simply being
mentioned, for instance, by the QA team when orphaning someone's
package? Something like "you didn't abide by the pledge, so we're
orphaning your package".

OTOH, I'm not against it on principle and believe it could be added to
the first steps of NM/DM without getting in the way, just as the current
DM-intent-email seems to include "I've read and agreed to ...".

Cheers

--
Leo "costela" Antunes
[insert a witty retort here]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Raphael Hertzog-3]

Hi,

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > As a package maintainer, I will do my best to help the Debian project
> > release a stable version of our operating system. In particular, I will
> > work together with the release team and I will keep all packages
> > associated to my name free of release critical bugs.
>
> I'd rephrase this last sentence as "... and I will do my best to keep
> all packages ...". IOW you should ask applicants to state their
> "guarantee of invested efforts" rather than "guarantee of result"
> (nobody can give the latter, everybody should give the former).

Ok.

> Beside the above wording remark, I've a problem with the first part of
> the pledge: it is too limited in scope.

It's intended. As I said it must apply to all package maintainers (DM as
well, not only future DD).

> The Release Team, routinely before releases, complaints (rightful!) that
> too few people work on RC bug which are not "theirs". The current NM
> process, IMHO, does not stress enough the fact that being a DD is also
> about something more than your own packages.

If all DD/DM applied what this pledge says, we would not have to rely so
much on having DD fixing someone else's package.

> I would add to the pledge a statement that, once your packages are in
> good condition, you should look forward to fix RC bugs in other
> packages. If we agree that this should be part of the pledge text, I can
> draft a corresponding sentence.

I don't think it's a good idea. And it would only be acceptable for DD,
and not all DD agree with this.

I want this pledge to be uncontroversial so that its message remains clear
and effective.

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Michael Banck wrote:
> To be honest, I think it goes into way too much detail about how RC bugs
> should get handled.  Of course, RC bugs are important, but if we
> introduce something like this, it seems a bit blown out of proportion.

Well, I drafted it precisely because I'm annoyed of having so many
maintainers ignore their RC bugs.

> What about trying to work gracefully with other members of the Debian
> community, as well as upstream and downstream developers?  What about
> treating our users respectfully?  What about striving to be excellent in
> your packaging?

If you find a wording for those points that is acceptable to everybody
then I'm fine to incorporate those but I fear it will be difficult.
As I stated, I want this text to be the minimal set of expectations
that we all agree on.

> If we are just worried about RC bugs (or RC bugs as result of overworked
> developers), I think we can handle this just fine right now (NMUs
> followed by forced orphaning from QA in coordination with the DAM).

I think the graphs show clearly that we don't. Having so many NMU and
force orphan by the QA team is a sign of failure of the current
maintainers. I want to avoid that as much as possible in the future.
(The key distinction for me is pro-active vs reactive)

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Michael Banck]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 02:49:39PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Beside the above wording remark, I've a problem with the first part of
> > the pledge: it is too limited in scope.
>
> It's intended. As I said it must apply to all package maintainers (DM as
> well, not only future DD).

What about current DDs/DMs?


Michael


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 02:49:39PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Beside the above wording remark, I've a problem with the first part of
> > the pledge: it is too limited in scope.
>
> It's intended. As I said it must apply to all package maintainers (DM as
> well, not only future DD).

I don't see the problem. If it is just a matter of audience, you can
have two different pledges, one for DD applicants, and one for DM
applicants. Also, the difference would be trivial: one paragraph
commented out in the DM pledge.

> > The Release Team, routinely before releases, complaints (rightful!) that
> > too few people work on RC bug which are not "theirs". The current NM
> > process, IMHO, does not stress enough the fact that being a DD is also
> > about something more than your own packages.
> If all DD/DM applied what this pledge says, we would not have to rely so
> much on having DD fixing someone else's package.

Sure, I was just pointing out that this pledge goes in the right
direction of raising the attention on the subject.

> > I would add to the pledge a statement that, once your packages are in
> > good condition, you should look forward to fix RC bugs in other
> > packages. If we agree that this should be part of the pledge text, I can
> > draft a corresponding sentence.
> I don't think it's a good idea. And it would only be acceptable for DD,
> and not all DD agree with this.
> I want this pledge to be uncontroversial so that its message remains clear
> and effective.

I believe the first part of my answer here address the DD vs DM
problem. Can you then please expand on why you don't think it is a good
idea to widen the attention to RC bugs on packages other than ours?

Additionally, I don't see how such extension would make the pledge more
controversial: the fact that we need people to do RC-countering-NMUs to
make releases possible is clear evidence for everyone. "Hiding" that
fact when you ask people to declare their good wills towards the project
looks rather pointless to me.

Cheers.

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 02:54:03PM +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> > It's intended. As I said it must apply to all package maintainers (DM as
> > well, not only future DD).
> What about current DDs/DMs?

I would say that it is a different problem, possibly out of the scope of
the proposed pledge, and surely not belonging to d-newmaint

Cheers.

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 02:15:42PM +0200, Leo costela Antunes wrote:
> While I mostly agree with the wording and the spirit of such a text, I
> fear it might add little to the existing necessary reading (policy,
> devref, etc) and be seen by those reading ans signing as merely one more
> bureaucratic hoop to jump through.

FWIW, I rather think that it adds a lot. Our current applicant
documentation has a lot to say about how to package, but very few to say
about the release process itself. You can argue that it is a topic that
can be added to such documents, but at that point it would be just one
extra section in the pool; that would be rather underestimated wrt the
importance that the release process has in the life of developers.

In that respect, I think the additional benefit of the pledge would be
increased by encouraging people to fix RC bugs other than theirs.

> Do you imagine it being enforced in any specific way? Or simply being
> mentioned, for instance, by the QA team when orphaning someone's
> package? Something like "you didn't abide by the pledge, so we're
> orphaning your package".

Is the declaration of accepting the social contract enforced in any
specific way?  The point---as I see it---is making people think about
what they sign, not about having a contract on the basis of which
retaliate later on.

> OTOH, I'm not against it on principle and believe it could be added to
> the first steps of NM/DM without getting in the way, just as the current
> DM-intent-email seems to include "I've read and agreed to ...".

Given that more often than not applicants learn new stuff during AM, I
would rather have the pledge signed at the end of the process, when
applicnts will probably be more conscious of what they are signing.

Cheers.

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

[Leo "costela" Antunes]

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> Is the declaration of accepting the social contract enforced in any
> specific way?  The point---as I see it---is making people think about
> what they sign, not about having a contract on the basis of which
> retaliate later on.

Good point.


> Given that more often than not applicants learn new stuff during AM, I
> would rather have the pledge signed at the end of the process, when
> applicnts will probably be more conscious of what they are signing.

The same could be said of policy, but at least in the case of DMs, our
current position seems to be that the principles behind, and the
overview of how Debian works - release included - should be learned
before the "declaration of intention", so putting them together seems
appropriate.

As for NM, I agree that it would be better put after P&P and T&S.


Cheers

--
Leo "costela" Antunes
[insert a witty retort here]


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Raphael Hertzog-3]

Hi,

On Sun, 20 Sep 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> > > I would add to the pledge a statement that, once your packages are in
> > > good condition, you should look forward to fix RC bugs in other
> > > packages. If we agree that this should be part of the pledge text, I can
> > > draft a corresponding sentence.
> > I don't think it's a good idea. And it would only be acceptable for DD,
> > and not all DD agree with this.
> > I want this pledge to be uncontroversial so that its message remains clear
> > and effective.
>
> I believe the first part of my answer here address the DD vs DM
> problem. Can you then please expand on why you don't think it is a good
> idea to widen the attention to RC bugs on packages other than ours?

How would you word it given it's an optional duty?

If you include the "I will do my best to fix other packages to get out a
stable release", the principle of the pledge might not be as widely
endorsed because some people believe that it's really not their duty
but the one of those who decided to be maintainers of those packages.

I really want only non-controversial stuff with a relatively sharp
message rather than covering more with a toned down wording because the
rest is optional/nice to have/not required.

> Additionally, I don't see how such extension would make the pledge more
> controversial: the fact that we need people to do RC-countering-NMUs to
> make releases possible is clear evidence for everyone. "Hiding" that
> fact when you ask people to declare their good wills towards the project
> looks rather pointless to me.

If you think in terms of "duty" instead of "good will", it gets more
controversial. I worded this text so that the person signing it has a
clear understanding of his duties with respect to the project.

Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 08:34:40PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > Additionally, I don't see how such extension would make the pledge more
> > controversial: the fact that we need people to do RC-countering-NMUs to
> > make releases possible is clear evidence for everyone. "Hiding" that
> > fact when you ask people to declare their good wills towards the project
> > looks rather pointless to me.
> If you think in terms of "duty" instead of "good will", it gets more
> controversial. I worded this text so that the person signing it has a
> clear understanding of his duties with respect to the project.

I see your point now. One is morally obliged to fix "his/her" RC bugs,
but it is hard to define the scope of the moral obligation to fix the RC
bugs of "others".

So yes, I've no good solution to advance on how to word that and I hence
retract my proposal.

It is just a pity to lose the occasion to focus attention of newbies on
the fact that Debian needs more from them than just looking at their own
quarters :-/

Cheers.

--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

[Holger Levsen-2]

Hi,

On Sonntag, 20. September 2009, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> I see your point now. One is morally obliged to fix "his/her" RC bugs,
> but it is hard to define the scope of the moral obligation to fix the RC
> bugs of "others".
[...]
> It is just a pity to lose the occasion to focus attention of newbies on
> the fact that Debian needs more from them than just looking at their own
> quarters :-/

How about just adding a statement reflecting that?: "And even though you
certainly don't have to fix RC bugs in packages you don't (co)maintain, it
would be great if you did!" or something like that.


regards,
        Holger

[Christoph Berg-2]

Re: Raphael Hertzog 2009-09-20 <20090920104125.GA25203@rivendell>
> As a package maintainer, I will do my best to help the Debian project
> release a stable version of our operating system. In particular, I will
[...]
> I am aware of the limits of my skills and my available time and I will
> avoid packaging software that I would not be able to maintain properly.

I think that boils down to "I will only introduce packages that I will
be able to maintain reasonably". For something people should sign, it
is way to detailed, and we certainly don't want to get into the
situation that we need lawyers to find out if someone is a bad
maintainer or not.

We already let people sign the SC (including the DFSG) - "We will be
guided by the needs of our users and the free software community." In
my understanding, that includes fixing bugs in a timely manner.

The proposed text sounds fine as an addition to the developers
reference, maybe as some foreword to chaper 3, "Debian Developer's
Duties". We can also draft some NM template questions about it.

Christoph
--
cb@... | http://www.df7cb.de/

[Scott Kitterman]

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009 12:33:05 +0200 Christoph Berg <myon@...> wrote:

>Re: Raphael Hertzog 2009-09-20 <20090920104125.GA25203@rivendell>
>> As a package maintainer, I will do my best to help the Debian project
>> release a stable version of our operating system. In particular, I will
>[...]
>> I am aware of the limits of my skills and my available time and I will
>> avoid packaging software that I would not be able to maintain properly.
>
>I think that boils down to "I will only introduce packages that I will
>be able to maintain reasonably". For something people should sign, it
>is way to detailed, and we certainly don't want to get into the
>situation that we need lawyers to find out if someone is a bad
>maintainer or not.
>
>We already let people sign the SC (including the DFSG) - "We will be
>guided by the needs of our users and the free software community." In
>my understanding, that includes fixing bugs in a timely manner.
>
>The proposed text sounds fine as an addition to the developers
>reference, maybe as some foreword to chaper 3, "Debian Developer's
>Duties". We can also draft some NM template questions about it.

I think this is quite sensible.  My initial reaction when I read the draft
was that it didn't cover anything that wasn't already implicit in the SC.

There will be some people for which some additional information about
expectations will be sufficient and your proposal addresses that.  There
are others who won't get it and no amount of pledge signing will change
that.

Scott K


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Peter Palfrader]

|                                                   In particular, I will
| work together with the release team

On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote:

> I think this is quite sensible.

I didn't.

Just you wait until the ftp team, the bugs team, the qa team and the
debian sysadmins also want people to sign pledges.

--
                           |  .''`.  ** Debian GNU/Linux **
      Peter Palfrader      | : :' :      The  universal
 http://www.palfrader.org/ | `. `'      Operating System
                           |   `-    http://www.debian.org/


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Lucas Nussbaum]

On 21/09/09 at 15:19 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:

> |                                                   In particular, I will
> | work together with the release team
>
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>
> > I think this is quite sensible.
>
> I didn't.
>
> Just you wait until the ftp team, the bugs team, the qa team and the
> debian sysadmins also want people to sign pledges.

Yeah! more bureaucracy! :)

I agree with the need of defining what being a responsible Debian
Developer encompasses. And it's probably also needed for DM. But I'm
really not sure about asking people to *sign* that. Having it clearly
documented somewhere (dev-ref? debian-newmaint?) would probably be
enough.
--
| Lucas Nussbaum
| lucas@...   http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ |
| jabber: lucas@...             GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Jan Hauke Rahm]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 05:13:36PM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

> On 21/09/09 at 15:19 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > |                                                   In particular, I will
> > | work together with the release team
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is quite sensible.
> >
> > I didn't.
> >
> > Just you wait until the ftp team, the bugs team, the qa team and the
> > debian sysadmins also want people to sign pledges.
>
> Yeah! more bureaucracy! :)
>
> I agree with the need of defining what being a responsible Debian
> Developer encompasses. And it's probably also needed for DM. But I'm
> really not sure about asking people to *sign* that. Having it clearly
> documented somewhere (dev-ref? debian-newmaint?) would probably be
> enough.

+1

Hauke

[Xavier Oswald-3]

On 17:13 Mon 21 Sep     , Lucas Nussbaum wrote:

> On 21/09/09 at 15:19 +0200, Peter Palfrader wrote:
> > |                                                   In particular, I will
> > | work together with the release team
> >
> > On Mon, 21 Sep 2009, Scott Kitterman wrote:
> >
> > > I think this is quite sensible.
> >
> > I didn't.
> >
> > Just you wait until the ftp team, the bugs team, the qa team and the
> > debian sysadmins also want people to sign pledges.
>
> Yeah! more bureaucracy! :)
>
> I agree with the need of defining what being a responsible Debian
> Developer encompasses. And it's probably also needed for DM. But I'm
> really not sure about asking people to *sign* that. Having it clearly
> documented somewhere (dev-ref? debian-newmaint?) would probably be
> enough.

+1

Greetings,
--
 ,''`.|         Xavier Oswald          xoswald@... OR xavier@... |
: :' :| Engineer at CALDERA GRAPHICS                     http://www.caldera.eu |
`. `' |  GNU/LINUX Debian Developer                          http://debian.org |
  `-  |   Isaac Project Developer             http://isaacproject.u-strasbg.fr |

[Charles Plessy-12]

Hi Raphaël,

Making stable releases is the major acheivement of our project, but I think
that the pledge you propose will backfire and not increase quality.

First of all, I feel that it uses a confrontational posture that will
demotivate contributors. Reading and signing such a text is not a nice way to
start a long term relationship.

Technically, I see a big problem in your proposal in the sense that its wording
seems to favor immediate action rather than ground work. There are plenty of
ways to “fix RC bugs” that are just hiding problems to users and Upstreams, for
instance disabling regression tests when they fail (hello, Ubuntu).

Lastly, your proposal is not well adapted to team work. As a DD, I am commited
to work on the release, especially at the end of cycles, but I would like to be
able to welcome DMs in our team who focus on new upstream releases (in
particular when they are Upstream themselves).

I support the opinion already expressed by others, that it would be better to
clarify the developers reference or other general texts if necessary, rather
than to add a new formal agreement to sign.

This said, I understand the motivation behind your proposal, and would like to
suggest to post a little bit more ‘motivational’ emails on
debian-devel-announce. I think that one per month would still be very
respectful of people's mailboxes, and would help a lot to remind every
developer where Debian is going.

Have a nice day,

--
Charles Plessy
Debian Med packaging team,
http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-newmaint-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...