DM team: Delegation update requested

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

DM team: Delegation update requested

Gunnar Wolf
Hi,

Looking at some bits in the "Debian's Organizational Structure"
webpage¹, I noticed the delegation for the DM team delegation needs to
be updated.

The current delegation, dating back to November 2007, mentions the
addition of Anibal to the team, but does not mention any other members
except as referenced in the "open beta" mail² it refers to. Not only
that, but it lists Joey Hess as a delegate; it is well known that Joey
retired from the project in late 2014³.

Also, the delegation should be IMO renamed, as we have changed the DM
handling since its inception. The DM team currently serves in a
fashion more similar to that of the NM front desk; we (the
keyring-maint team) are the keyring maintainers for DM as well.

Mehdi, please consider updating the delegation reflecting the reality.

Thanks!

PS- Sorry for pinging on this non-urgent subject via a public mailing
    list, but after all, that's the listed contact address for the DM
    team. I am in no way trying to gain prominence by exhibiting a
    stale bit of reality!

¹ https://www.debian.org/intro/organization
² https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/11/msg00004.html
³ https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/11/msg00174.html

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DM team: Delegation update requested

Sam Hartman-5
Hi,

[ As a courtesy, I am explicitly CC'ing anibal. ]

On 02/05/2016 20:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Also, the delegation should be IMO renamed, as we have changed the DM
> handling since its inception. The DM team currently serves in a
> fashion more similar to that of the NM front desk; we (the
> keyring-maint team) are the keyring maintainers for DM as well.
>

The consensus reached with NM Frontdesk is that no delegation is needed
for the assigned tasks. I agree that this is also applicable to the
Newmaint team. But I will not de-delegate Newmaint if they feel a
delegation is still needed (If that's the case, I'd be interested to
know why though) and would like to hear Anibal's opinion before taking a
decision.

Another option would be to welcome Anibal in the Keyring maint team,
which could also make sense and would give him more autonomy. What do
you think?

> PS- Sorry for pinging on this non-urgent subject via a public mailing
>     list, but after all, that's the listed contact address for the DM
>     team. I am in no way trying to gain prominence by exhibiting a
>     stale bit of reality!
>

Sure… even if this very specific topic is of no big interest to the
list, and mainly intended for Anibal.

Regards,

--
Mehdi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DM team: Delegation update requested

Jonathan McDowell-3
On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:09:49PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:

> [ As a courtesy, I am explicitly CC'ing anibal. ]
>
> On 02/05/2016 20:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> > Also, the delegation should be IMO renamed, as we have changed the DM
> > handling since its inception. The DM team currently serves in a
> > fashion more similar to that of the NM front desk; we (the
> > keyring-maint team) are the keyring maintainers for DM as well.
> >
> The consensus reached with NM Frontdesk is that no delegation is needed
> for the assigned tasks. I agree that this is also applicable to the
> Newmaint team. But I will not de-delegate Newmaint if they feel a
> delegation is still needed (If that's the case, I'd be interested to
> know why though) and would like to hear Anibal's opinion before taking a
> decision.
>
> Another option would be to welcome Anibal in the Keyring maint team,
> which could also make sense and would give him more autonomy. What do
> you think?
In general we've tried to keep the roles responsible for deciding which
keys should go into the keyring separate from the management of the
keyring; while keyring-maint has taken over the addition of DM keys to
the keyring we have never engaged in processing DM applications or
making the decisions around accepting them.

J.

--
... Are you happy with your wash?

signature.asc (817 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DM team: Delegation update requested

Aníbal Monsalve Salazar-2
On Tue, 2016-05-03 09:33:57 +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:

> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:09:49PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>> On 02/05/2016 20:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>>> Also, the delegation should be IMO renamed, as we have changed
>>> the DM handling since its inception. The DM team currently
>>> serves in a fashion more similar to that of the NM front desk;
>>> we (the keyring-maint team) are the keyring maintainers for DM
>>> as well.
>>
>> The consensus reached with NM Frontdesk is that no delegation is
>> needed for the assigned tasks. I agree that this is also
>> applicable to the Newmaint team. But I will not de-delegate
>> Newmaint if they feel a delegation is still needed (If that's the
>> case, I'd be interested to know why though) and would like to
>> hear Anibal's opinion before taking a decision.
>>
>> Another option would be to welcome Anibal in the Keyring maint
>> team, which could also make sense and would give him more
>> autonomy. What do you think?
>
> In general we've tried to keep the roles responsible for deciding
> which keys should go into the keyring separate from the management
> of the keyring; while keyring-maint has taken over the addition of
> DM keys to the keyring we have never engaged in processing DM
> applications or making the decisions around accepting them.
Hello all,

In a meeting during DC9 in Caceres in 2009, Joey Hess, Jonathan
McDowell and I agreed to pass the management of the DM keyring to
the keyring team to integrate the DMs more into various Debian
resources. It was done pretty well.

During DC14 in Portland I meet Enrico Zini who wanted to merge the
DM applications into the NM process. We agreed on it. It is work in
progress.

I'll love to be part of the keyring team (I maintained keys in the
DM keyring from 2007 to 2009) processing DM applications until it's
integrated into the NM process.

Hopefully I'll get the support of Jonathan McDowell, Gunnar Wolf and
Daniel Kahn Gillmor.

Kind Regards,

Aníbal

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DM team: Delegation update requested

Sam Hartman-5
Hi,

On 03/05/2016 12:17, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:

> On Tue, 2016-05-03 09:33:57 +0100, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
>> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 10:09:49PM +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>>> On 02/05/2016 20:21, Gunnar Wolf wrote:
>>>> Also, the delegation should be IMO renamed, as we have changed
>>>> the DM handling since its inception. The DM team currently
>>>> serves in a fashion more similar to that of the NM front desk;
>>>> we (the keyring-maint team) are the keyring maintainers for DM
>>>> as well.
>>>
>>> The consensus reached with NM Frontdesk is that no delegation is
>>> needed for the assigned tasks. I agree that this is also
>>> applicable to the Newmaint team. But I will not de-delegate
>>> Newmaint if they feel a delegation is still needed (If that's the
>>> case, I'd be interested to know why though) and would like to
>>> hear Anibal's opinion before taking a decision.
>>>
>>> Another option would be to welcome Anibal in the Keyring maint
>>> team, which could also make sense and would give him more
>>> autonomy. What do you think?
>>
>> In general we've tried to keep the roles responsible for deciding
>> which keys should go into the keyring separate from the management
>> of the keyring; while keyring-maint has taken over the addition of
>> DM keys to the keyring we have never engaged in processing DM
>> applications or making the decisions around accepting them.
>

I agree with Jonathan here that roles should be kept separate. On
another level, the team has been able to process keys in a timely
fashion, AFAIK. So nothing pleads in extending the team's size.

> In a meeting during DC9 in Caceres in 2009, Joey Hess, Jonathan
> McDowell and I agreed to pass the management of the DM keyring to
> the keyring team to integrate the DMs more into various Debian
> resources. It was done pretty well.
>
> During DC14 in Portland I meet Enrico Zini who wanted to merge the
> DM applications into the NM process. We agreed on it. It is work in
> progress.
>

I am also fairly confident this process could be automatized if we
find someone to write the necessary code. AFAIK, Enrico got no time
to do that yet. So maybe a call for help could make things move
forward.

Following the same reasoning applied to Frontdesk team's delegation,
I think delegation for the Newmaint team could be revoked since the
required work is administrative (AIUI) and requires no special powers.
It doesn't mean work cannot continue, but only that a delegation is
not required. Hopefully, this could also encourage more people to
join you and give some help.

Anibal, are we on the same page?

Kind regards,

--
Mehdi

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DM team: Delegation update requested

Aníbal Monsalve Salazar-2
On Sat, 2016-05-07 11:15:39 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> Following the same reasoning applied to Frontdesk team's
> delegation, I think delegation for the Newmaint team could be
> revoked since the required work is administrative (AIUI) and
> requires no special powers.  It doesn't mean work cannot continue,
> but only that a delegation is not required. Hopefully, this could
> also encourage more people to join you and give some help.
>
> Anibal, are we on the same page?

Yes, I agree.

Regards.

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: DM team: Delegation update requested

Sam Hartman-5
Hi,

On 18/05/2016 11:17, Aníbal Monsalve Salazar wrote:

> On Sat, 2016-05-07 11:15:39 +0200, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
>> Following the same reasoning applied to Frontdesk team's
>> delegation, I think delegation for the Newmaint team could be
>> revoked since the required work is administrative (AIUI) and
>> requires no special powers.  It doesn't mean work cannot continue,
>> but only that a delegation is not required. Hopefully, this could
>> also encourage more people to join you and give some help.
>>
>> Anibal, are we on the same page?
>
> Yes, I agree.
>

Thank you for your understanding and confirming, Anibal! I'll issue
an update on this to d-d-a soon.

Regards,

--
Mehdi