Changing policy for the Maintainer field

Marcus Better · External Since: Nov 19, 2004 Posts: 366

Hi,

in light of discussions [1, 2] about the best way to manage Maintainer and
Uploaders fields, I suggest we introduce a minor change, with the goal of
improving quality and minimising bit rot.

The problem is, in short, that a package may go without attention because
uploaders don't feel responsible or forget about it, thinking someone else
is maintaining the package. (I can provide plenty of examples if needed.)

I suggest we adopt the same scheme used by the Perl team [1]:
Maintainer = the main _person_ responsible for the package
Uploaders = the team mailing list + members who actually care for the
package (who have touched it in the past, for example).

The Maintainer has ultimate responsibility for the package, so there is
someone to blame if the package rots. Smile

The rules for team uploads still
apply, with minor variations:

*If the mailing list is listed in Uploaders, it means that anyone can make
an upload (adding her own name to the Uploaders).
*If the mailing list is not listed in Uploaders, then this is not permitted
without asking the Maintainer.

The Maintainer will be responsible for keeping the list of Uploaders in
shape, removing people who are no longer active.

Finally, I suggest we apply these rules to new packages. For existing
packages, the Uploaders can decide among themselves if and when to switch
to the new style.

Please tell me what you think about it!

Marcus

[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/01/msg00275.html
[2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-java/2006/10/msg00021.html

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

Petter Reinholdtsen · External Since: Nov 10, 2004 Posts: 903

[Marcus Better]
> I suggest we adopt the same scheme used by the Perl team [1]:
> Maintainer = the main _person_ responsible for the package
> Uploaders = the team mailing list + members who actually care for the
> package (who have touched it in the past, for example).

I believe this is a bad idea, because only the maintainer get the bug
reports by default, and I believe the entire team should get a message
when new bugs arrive.

In the Debian Boot team, the packages are group maintained with the
uploaders as the persons taking most care of the packages. I believe
this work very well. If group maintainence do not work properly, I
believe it need to be fixed in the group. I doubt shuffling fields in
the control file will fix the problem.

Friendly,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen

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

Marcus Better · External Since: Nov 19, 2004 Posts: 366

Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> I believe this is a bad idea, because only the maintainer get the bug
> reports by default, and I believe the entire team should get a message
> when new bugs arrive.

An even bigger problem is that nobody gets the bug reports in person now.
Uploaders are supposed to subscribe to the package in the PTS.

Isn't it possible to get bug reports forwarded automatically to the mailing
list anyway?

> In the Debian Boot team, the packages are group maintained with the
> uploaders as the persons taking most care of the packages. I believe
> this work very well. If group maintainence do not work properly, I
> believe it need to be fixed in the group.

I partly agree, but I think that different groups can have different
dynamics and structure, and therefore require different rules. This
explains the fact that various teams have come up with different ways of
managing things (see the thread in -devel I referred to in my last mail).
So while this setup might work well in Debian Boot, I would argue that it
doesn't work well here.

One reason for this may be that many Java packages do not require updates
very often, so it is normal that very little work is done for long periods
(several months). This means that people can drop out without anyone
noticing much. The team's loose structure makes this matter even worse.

I know at least one person that is listed as Uploader for dozens of
packages, despite being MIA for almost a year. Could that ever happen in
Debian Boot? If not, how is it prevented?

> I doubt shuffling fields in the control file will fix the problem.

It will fix one aspect of the problem, namely that "shared responsibility"
equals "no responsibility" in too many cases.

Marcus

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

Marcus Better · External Since: Nov 19, 2004 Posts: 366

Marcus Better wrote:
> Isn't it possible to get bug reports forwarded automatically to the
> mailing list anyway?

Apparently the mailing list can be subscribed to the PTS. I guess someone
has to do it manually for each package though.

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

Marcus Better · External Since: Nov 19, 2004 Posts: 366

Stefan Gybas wrote:
>> The Maintainer has ultimate responsibility for the package,

> What if this person becomes MIA?

One of the Uploaders will notice and take over the package and replace the
Maintainer, which would be an improvement over the current situation.

If nobody steps forward the package should be formally orphaned, unlike
today when it's only informally orphaned and slowly becomes a quality
problem.

> I'm listed as uploader in serveral packages and have been mostly
> inactive for about two years. I should have removed myself from all
> these packages. So if someone wants to remove me in the next uploads,
> that's fine.

Well, I'm glad you told us about it! Ideally people who retire would remove
their name from the packages in SVN, so the change would be in the next
release.

> The main problem IMHO is that most of the team members are only active
> for a (shorter or longer) period of time and then get busy with other
> things. Some return after a cople of months, others don't. Some (like
> me) still have the hope to return in the future.

I think your analysis is correct. That's why it is important to have clear
responsibility, otherwise we can more or less expect packages to get
silently orphaned.

> I think it's more dangerous if people are listed in the Maintainer:
> field and then become more and more inactive. A single maintainer might
> keep others from stepping in. To me, a group maintainer looks more like
> an invitation to participate.

Note that I still propose that we would have a group of maintainers, with
the others listed as Uploaders. Anyone could join and list themselves as
Uploaders, much like today.

Marcus

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

Paul Cager · External Since: Nov 30, 2006 Posts: 123

Marcus Better wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I suggest we adopt the same scheme used by the Perl team [1]:
> Maintainer = the main _person_ responsible for the package
> Uploaders = the team mailing list + members who actually care for the
> package (who have touched it in the past, for example).
>

Would this still allow us to get a package overview for all of the
packages owned by the team:

http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=pkg-java-maintainers@lists.al...h.debia

This overview looks like it would be useful to identify stagnating
packages, or ones just in need of a bit of help.

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

Petter Reinholdtsen · External Since: Nov 10, 2004 Posts: 903

[Paul Cager]
> Would this still allow us to get a package overview for all of the
> packages owned by the team:

Yes. The summary will include all team maintained packages as long as
the list is listed as maintainer or uploader.

Friendly,
--
Petter Reinholdtsen

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

Arnaud Vandyck · External Since: Oct 30, 2006 Posts: 66

On 1/9/07, Marcus Better <marcus.DeleteThis@better.se> wrote:
> Stefan Gybas wrote:
> >> The Maintainer has ultimate responsibility for the package,
>
> > What if this person becomes MIA?
>
> One of the Uploaders will notice and take over the package and replace the
> Maintainer, which would be an improvement over the current situation.
>
> If nobody steps forward the package should be formally orphaned, unlike
> today when it's only informally orphaned and slowly becomes a quality
> problem.

As you mentionned, a lot of packages does not need a lot of attention.
Why do you want to orphan a package that could be just here because a
lot of people use it and it does not need upload!

> > I'm listed as uploader in serveral packages and have been mostly
> > inactive for about two years. I should have removed myself from all
> > these packages. So if someone wants to remove me in the next uploads,
> > that's fine.
>
> Well, I'm glad you told us about it! Ideally people who retire would remove
> their name from the packages in SVN, so the change would be in the next
> release.

Stefan hasn't retire. He did a lot of work on debian-java (well,
nearly everything with Ola and Tora, sorry if I forget someone) and
want to do more, but just does not have the time at the moment.

> > The main problem IMHO is that most of the team members are only active
> > for a (shorter or longer) period of time and then get busy with other
> > things. Some return after a cople of months, others don't. Some (like
> > me) still have the hope to return in the future.
>
> I think your analysis is correct. That's why it is important to have clear
> responsibility, otherwise we can more or less expect packages to get
> silently orphaned.

The responsability is to the group.

> > I think it's more dangerous if people are listed in the Maintainer:
> > field and then become more and more inactive. A single maintainer might
> > keep others from stepping in. To me, a group maintainer looks more like
> > an invitation to participate.
>
> Note that I still propose that we would have a group of maintainers, with
> the others listed as Uploaders. Anyone could join and list themselves as
> Uploaders, much like today.

But it's working in a different way. It does not invite people to participate.

In an other mail in this thread, you said:

> It will fix one aspect of the problem, namely that
> "shared responsibility" equals "no responsibility"
> in too many cases.

I don't agree with that. Everyone in the group is de facto responsible
for every package. I think we need an audit about packages in pkg-java
and some do it sometime. Wolfgang did it for a lot of package, I also
did it a long time ago, you also fix a lot of packages.

I prefer the way we do it at the moment. Everyone can subscribe to
pkg-java and propose patches. Every member of the group can apply the
patches if they are good.

--
Arnaud Vandyck

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

Marcus Better · External Since: Nov 19, 2004 Posts: 366

Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> As you mentionned, a lot of packages does not need a lot of attention.
> Why do you want to orphan a package that could be just here because a
> lot of people use it and it does not need upload!

*Because at a certain point it will need attention, perhaps urgently, and
then nobody will feel the need to attend to it.
*Also because it would make the danger of bit-rot visible.
*Finally I would expect that another co-maintainer would take over the
package if the main maintainer drops out, so it would not need to be
orphaned.

>> > I'm listed as uploader in serveral packages and have been mostly
>> > inactive for about two years. I should have removed myself from all
>> > these packages. So if someone wants to remove me in the next uploads,
>> > that's fine.
>>
>> Well, I'm glad you told us about it! Ideally people who retire would
>> remove their name from the packages in SVN, so the change would be in the
>> next release.
>
> Stefan hasn't retire.

I take his statement to mean that he has stopped maintaining those packages,
and no longer wishes to be a co-maintainer.

> but just does not have the time at the moment.

Two years is not just "at the moment". Everyone has the right to be away
from Debian now and then, that's when co-maintainers are useful. But if
that goes on for years, or if the person is MIA, it's more reasonable to
hand over the packages.

>> > The main problem IMHO is that most of the team members are only active
>> > for a (shorter or longer) period of time and then get busy with other
>> > things. Some return after a cople of months, others don't. Some (like
>> > me) still have the hope to return in the future.
>>
>> I think your analysis is correct. That's why it is important to have
>> clear responsibility, otherwise we can more or less expect packages to
>> get silently orphaned.
>
> The responsability is to the group.

Yes, and I argue that this isn't working very well.

>> Note that I still propose that we would have a group of maintainers, with
>> the others listed as Uploaders. Anyone could join and list themselves as
>> Uploaders, much like today.
>
> But it's working in a different way. It does not invite people to
> participate.

Well, I don't understand this argument, which Stefan also put forward. If
the team web site states clearly that every member can become Uploader,
then why not?

>> It will fix one aspect of the problem, namely that
>> "shared responsibility" equals "no responsibility"
>> in too many cases.
>
> I don't agree with that. Everyone in the group is de facto responsible
> for every package.

Sorry, I don't think of it that way. I do not feel responsible in any way
for packages where I'm not Uploader. I won't take blame for problems in,
say, the kaffe packages that I never touched. We have hundreds of packages
and nobody can be $responsible for all of them, for any reasonable value of
$responsible.

Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part?

> I prefer the way we do it at the moment. Everyone can subscribe to
> pkg-java and propose patches. Every member of the group can apply the
> patches if they are good.

Yes, that's good and my suggestion doesn't intend to change this.

All I want to do is to attach one actual _person_ to each package, who can
always be counted on to be responsible.

Well, nobody seems to agree with me. Smile

But I think there is a real problem,
which affects the quality of Debian as a Java platform.

Marcus

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

Eric Lavarde - Debian · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 38

Hi Marcus,

I'd like to raise three things:

1. you say twice in your email that Debian has a Java quality issue. Can
you please be more specific, I don't understand which issue(s) you're
aiming at?

2. perhaps a step to make those issues visible and more easily
"addressable" by the "pkg-java" team, would be to have a report sent
monthly with all RC bugs + all bugs of a certain importance not answered
for 6 months. We would then do a review making sure that each package/bug
is properly owned (e.g. through a certain tag).

3. Maintainer would remain on pkg-java, first name of the Uploaded field
should be the human/main maintainer, but would be only updated when doing
for other reasons an upload.

Cheers, Eric

--
You don't need to CC me on debian-java, debian-mentors and
pkg-java-maintainers.
Please CC me on other Debian lists.

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

Marcus Better · External Since: Nov 19, 2004 Posts: 366

Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
> 1. you say twice in your email that Debian has a Java quality issue. Can
> you please be more specific, I don't understand which issue(s) you're
> aiming at?

One more thing: Don't get me wrong, there are many parts of the Java effort
that are very well maintained, such as the core parts, compilers and such.
And I know we are all doing our best. But the situation is worse when it
comes to minor libraries which are nevertheless very important for serious
work. More about this later...

Regards,

Marcus

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

Marcus Better · External Since: Nov 19, 2004 Posts: 366

Eric Lavarde - Debian wrote:
> 1. you say twice in your email that Debian has a Java quality issue. Can
> you please be more specific,

Yes, I can give examples, but not until next week though. It has to do with
bugs, even important ones, not getting attention. For a quick idea, look at
the history of mysql-connector-java which was recently pushed through to
etch, after a being nearly unusable for a long time.

> 2. perhaps a step to make those issues visible and more easily
> "addressable" by the "pkg-java" team, would be to have a report sent
> monthly with all RC bugs + all bugs of a certain importance not answered
> for 6 months.

Sure, that would perhaps help.

> 3. Maintainer would remain on pkg-java, first name of the Uploaded field
> should be the human/main maintainer, but would be only updated when doing
> for other reasons an upload.

That's ok with me, but you are changing the interpretation of the Uploaders
field, and it shouldn't be done retroactively. So we need a way to
distinguish the packages where the first Uploader is actually "main"
maintainer. (Hence my suggestion that we use the Maintainer field for that,
which is also more explicit.)

Marcus

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

Paul Cager · External Since: Nov 29, 2006 Posts: 32

>> Stefan hasn't retired.
>
> I take his statement to mean that he has stopped maintaining those
> packages,
> and no longer wishes to be a co-maintainer.
>
>> but just does not have the time at the moment.

When I was preparing a new upload of BCEL I asked Stefan if he would like
me to remove his name from the Maintainers field, and he said "yes
please". I would guess that he would also wish to be removed from the
other packages (although I have not confirmed that assumption).

Of course, I wouldn't assume that this necessarily applied to any other
quiescent maintainer...

Paul

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

Arnaud Vandyck · External Since: Oct 30, 2006 Posts: 66

On 1/12/07, Marcus Better <marcus.RemoveThis@better.se> wrote:
> Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
> > As you mentionned, a lot of packages does not need a lot of attention.
> > Why do you want to orphan a package that could be just here because a
> > lot of people use it and it does not need upload!
>
> *Because at a certain point it will need attention, perhaps urgently, and
> then nobody will feel the need to attend to it.
> *Also because it would make the danger of bit-rot visible.

English problem here, I don't understand this sentence :'(

> *Finally I would expect that another co-maintainer would take over the
> package if the main maintainer drops out, so it would not need to be
> orphaned.

Maybe we can make a survey: DD that do want to be responsible for
pkg-java packages, please, upload them with you in the maintainer
field and pkg-java in the uploader field. I think we'll have a lot of
packages that will be orphaned. I don't think the quality of
debian-java will be better.

[...]

> > The responsability is to the group.
>
> Yes, and I argue that this isn't working very well.

I think it's working. Wolfgang and others did a lot of work without
being DD and it's also because pkg-java is the maintainer. Also, note
that I'm not sure uploading package with maintainer not being a DD
will improuve the quality of the package!

> >> Note that I still propose that we would have a group of maintainers, with
> >> the others listed as Uploaders. Anyone could join and list themselves as
> >> Uploaders, much like today.
> >
> > But it's working in a different way. It does not invite people to
> > participate.
>
> Well, I don't understand this argument, which Stefan also put forward. If
> the team web site states clearly that every member can become Uploader,
> then why not?

Because it's not the responsability of the team but of one DD.

> >> It will fix one aspect of the problem, namely that
> >> "shared responsibility" equals "no responsibility"
> >> in too many cases.
> >
> > I don't agree with that. Everyone in the group is de facto responsible
> > for every package.
>
> Sorry, I don't think of it that way. I do not feel responsible in any way
> for packages where I'm not Uploader.

Well. I do. Even if I don't know how to fix things. I feel responsible
for the quality of Debian in general, not only the pkg-java packages,
not only my packages.

> I won't take blame for problems in,
> say, the kaffe packages that I never touched. We have hundreds of packages
> and nobody can be $responsible for all of them, for any reasonable value of
> $responsible.

But everybody can file bugs, send patches and resolve bugs.

> Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part?

Well, I thought that was the definition of a team. I feel less
responsible when the package is maintained by someone I don't know and
when I get flamed when I upload it even if he doesn't take care of the
package for a long time!

[...]

> All I want to do is to attach one actual _person_ to each package, who can
> always be counted on to be responsible.

That's not what I call a team, but it's my conception, I don't want to
be a guru Wink

> Well, nobody seems to agree with me. Smile

But I think there is a real problem,
> which affects the quality of Debian as a Java platform.

I don't think the solution you propose will solve something, but if
you want to be the maintainer of new package you'll put in pkg-java
and put pkg-java in the uploaders, I don't care, but except if two
other DD do agree with you, don't do that on existing packages.

--
Arnaud Vandyck

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

Marcus Better · External Since: Nov 19, 2004 Posts: 366

Arnaud Vandyck wrote:
>> *Also because it would make the danger of bit-rot visible.
>
> English problem here, I don't understand this sentence :'(

I mean that there will be a visible difference between these cases:
(a) A package that has gone a long time without activity because it works
well, and
(b) A package that has gone a long time without activity because the
Uploaders moved on to other work, although the package needs maintenance.

> Maybe we can make a survey: DD that do want to be responsible for
> pkg-java packages, please, upload them with you in the maintainer
> field and pkg-java in the uploader field.

Note that the proposal is also to have all the other uploaders in the
Uploader field, not only pkg-java.

> I think it's working. Wolfgang and others did a lot of work without
> being DD and it's also because pkg-java is the maintainer.

A non-DD can also be maintainer. I maintain a few packages on my own.

>> Sorry, I don't think of it that way. I do not feel responsible in any way
>> for packages where I'm not Uploader.
>
> Well. I do. Even if I don't know how to fix things. I feel responsible
> for the quality of Debian in general,

Well, so do I, but in a more general sense. If I am directly responsible for
a package (Maintainer or Uploader) which has open bugs, then that bothers
me a lot more than bugs in other packages.

> Well, I thought that was the definition of a team. I feel less
> responsible when the package is maintained by someone I don't know and
> when I get flamed when I upload it even if he doesn't take care of the
> package for a long time!

I don't see why that would happen. Putting pkg-java in the Uploader field is
(should be) a sign that the package is team-maintained and that the
Maintainer is part of pkg-java, and accepts our standards for cooperation.

>> All I want to do is to attach one actual _person_ to each package, who
>> can always be counted on to be responsible.
>
> That's not what I call a team, but it's my conception, I don't want to
> be a guru Wink

The Maintainer and Uploaders would certainly be a team, but one with a team
leader. Today we have teams with no formal leader.

Marcus

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

Arnaud Vandyck · External Since: Oct 30, 2006 Posts: 66

On 1/12/07, Marcus Better <marcus.DeleteThis@better.se> wrote:
[...]
> The Maintainer and Uploaders would certainly be a team,
> but one with a team leader. Today we have teams
> with no formal leader.

That's just the way Debian works!

--
Arnaud Vandyck

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