Debian Bug report logs - #750135
Determine maintainer of aptitude package

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: submit@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Request to ctte about administration of aptitude project -- was Re: [Aptitude-devel] Processed: Unmark changes that are no longer pending

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 14:48:41 -0700

Package: tech-ctte
Severity: normal
Control: submitter -1 "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
Control: retitle -1 Determine maintainer of aptitude package

----- Forwarded message from "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com> -----

Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2014 16:17:58 +0100
From: "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>
To: aptitude-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
Cc: debian-ctte@lists.debian.org
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Subject: Request to ctte about administration of aptitude project -- was Re: [Aptitude-devel] Processed: Unmark changes that
	are no longer pending

Hi,

Just for reference, the fixes marked as pending in the bugs in the email
below that you are unmarking, are not commited to the repository because
you removed access permissions from me months ago and did not restore
them yet after several requests, not because I don't have them applied
locally and plan to upload them in next uploads of the package.

I am still waiting for you to grant me permissions to commit again.

BTW, Daniel, you did not push anything to the repository in more than 2
months now (last commits: 2014-03-22), and also didn't push anything
significant in the 3 months since you kicked me out of the aptitude
project in Alioth.  Even if you have made any improvements in private,
they should not be kept private, as requested since long ago and not
only by me.

So you keep acting in an unproductive way for the project and Debian in
general, and since you don't want to agree to anything and only follow
your own will, I am going to attempt something a bit more radical.  I
didn't want to do because it is bad for everybody initially (hopefully
better for the long term survival of aptitude), but you didn't leave me
any other alternative other than me staying silent, which also is bad
for everybody but for you.


@ctte, tl;dr:

Can you please tell me what's the best way (if asking a formal
resolution from the ctte, or what other ways do I have available) to
request that I am restored my admin status on aptitude project in
Alioth, and Daniel gets the admin permissions removed?

Daniel Hartwig asked Alioth admins to grant him admin permissions in the
project just to remove me immediately (in early March), after more than
one year (since late 2012) of him keeping the development of aptitude in
a stand-still, which I picked it up again in January this year.

The reason was because he did not like the changes that I was doing to
aptitude (mostly fixes to existing bug reports, no radical new
developments), and without agreement from anybody but him he kicked me
out of the project (even plain member status) 3 months ago, so I cannot
commit to the repository.

After several requests, 3 months after that, nothing much has changed.

--

Background: Daniel Burrows, the creator of aptitude and maintainer for a
decade or more, stopped being active in mid 2011, and soon after that
(Nov 2011 or so) both Hartwig and I took over, because Christian Perrier
and other people gave us member permissions immediately and without any
restriction to do as we pleased -- when we did not even know if Daniel
Burrows would eventually return.

Soon after that, in Feb 2012 or so, because of similar clashes (Hartwig
complaining about every other change that I made for one reason or
another, with multiple private messages and very silly details
sometimes) I retired to the background, thinking that it would be better
overall for the project.  (I would be very happy if projects that I
consider important/critical ran fine, and I didn't feel the need to be
involved -- and I would be also be very happy if somebody else was
taking good care of aptitude right now, I would stop again being
involved).

When we took over, the pace of development was good for a while, Nov
2011 to Feb 2012 when we both were active, and then after I retired to
the backstage relatively steady until Nov 2012 (although not very much
after June 2012) when Daniel Hartwig keeped the development active.

But, since Daniel Burrows left, the development of aptitude was only
really active during one year or so.  After Nov 2012, everything stopped
to a stand-still, with only a handful of commits in the first half of
2013 (including people NMUing the package in 2013 due to lack of
response, and no reaction after that).  Seeing the situation of complete
absence of maintainance activity for more than 6 months, I started to
participate again to continue development in early 2014.


When I started picking up development again in Jan 2014 and after more
than 6 months of complete silence or work in code or BTS, Daniel Hartwig
soon started to complain again about minor details of my activities, to
remove commits from me, to undo changes in the BTS that I had done
(changing ownership of bugs from me to him, unmarking as pending, etc,
as he's doing now in the email below), and to act aggressively in
general without feeling the need to explain anything.  Déjà vu of what
happened in 2012.  This time I was doing mostly fixes to existing bug
reports, and not any significant new features or any significant new
development, and I was going to integrate changes from other branches
which had not been developed for 1.5 years, so they would not be lost
completely.

Part of Daniel Hartwig's complaints were that some of these new features
(mostly or all his) were being still developed, but slowley and in
private, and that my changes were going to cause problems for him
integrating.  I stopped doing anything but trivial fixes to bug reports,
but nothing helped, and Hartwig kept complaining for one reason or
another about minor details.  Months after that, what he promissed that
would be integrated in 2/4 weeks, is still nowhere to be found in the
public repo of aptitude.

After many discussions and Axel Beckert trying to mediate in several of
them, as I said above, at some point in late February or March, Daniel
Hartwig asked Alioth admins to grant him admin permissions in the
project (Alioth admins did, because he was a legit contributor and in
principle they didn't have any reason not to), just to remove me
immediately, because he did not like the changes that I was doing to
aptitude, and without agreement from anybody but him (Axel and some
users in the mailing list complained about it) he kicked me out of the
project (even member status) 3 months ago.

The project has been in a stand-still again since he kicked me, except
for pushing some changes in early march about the same time, that were
actually developments from these old branches which he was trying to
integrate and release in unstable.


Over the history of the projects after Daniel Burrows stopped, there
were many good bugs fixes and minor internal rewrites of some areas, but
nobody made any really significant improvements to aptitude in terms of
radical improvements or new features.  Still, Daniel Hartwig believes
that he's a long standing maintainer, and that's why he acts as he does.
I dispute that fact, because it's not been maintainer for long (scarcely
1 year of real activity) and not for a long time, because he stopped
doing effective maintainance for 1.5 years now, except the few weeks of
minor activity around the time when I resumed development.

I do not believe that the current situation is good for Debian, and I
don't think that these attitudes should be tolerated among fellow
developers.  Thus this request.


Keeping him as member and contributing is completely fine for me; admin
is also fine as long as somebody takes the responsibility for acting
*immediately* if he starts doing the same things again (with me or
somebody else).  I also think that it would be good if other people also
contributed to this important project.

What I am not happy is for Daniel to act as the sole person to decide
who should collaborate or not, or how, because by doing this he's been
preventing collaboration and development of aptitude.  Also, as a Debian
member, I do not trust him to be a good project admin or maintainer of
the project, when he acts in these arrogant and whimsical ways, keeps
development in private (or claims to, the outcome of his private
development seems to be very meagre, if exists at all), and because he's
IMO completely unjustified in setting himself in this managerial
position in aptitude, when been inactive for more time that he's been
active, the total time of activity is about 1 year, and the project was
not of his own creation, to start with.


Finally, some pointers...

Removing my permissions:

 http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/aptitude-devel/2014-March/004371.html


Hartwig complaining about my commits and wanting to act as boss after 1+
year of inactivity (and less than 1 of activity):

 http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/aptitude-devel/2014-February/004139.html


Uploading to mentors (when both Axel and me can sponsor, and I had made
a few releases on my own earlier this year) a release without any
consensus or discussion at all, just to mark the territory, when I was
still working actively and wanted to fix some more issues:

 http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/aptitude-devel/2014-February/004265.html



I can provide more information as required, but this is already quite
long.  It will maybe take me a bit to reply or limit my replies to only
one or two messages per day, I am a bit busy at the moment.


Cheers.
--
Manuel


2014-06-01 12:57 Debian Bug Tracking System:
> Processing commands for control@bugs.debian.org:
> 
>> noowner 647474
> Bug #647474 [aptitude] aptitude: When piping, stdout doesn't include "RECOMMENDED but will not be installed"
> Bug #587676 [aptitude] --give-me-the-same-output-even-though-you-think-i-am-not-on-a-terminal
> Bug #720074 [aptitude] aptitude: Can not redirect part of information of aptitude
> Removed annotation that Bug was owned by "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>.
> Removed annotation that Bug was owned by "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>.
> Removed annotation that Bug was owned by "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>.
>> tags 647474 - pending
> Bug #647474 [aptitude] aptitude: When piping, stdout doesn't include "RECOMMENDED but will not be installed"
> Bug #587676 [aptitude] --give-me-the-same-output-even-though-you-think-i-am-not-on-a-terminal
> Bug #720074 [aptitude] aptitude: Can not redirect part of information of aptitude
> Removed tag(s) pending.
> Removed tag(s) pending.
> Removed tag(s) pending.
>> # Using XDG_CACHE_DIR is complicated by su, sudo interaction.
>> tags 671780 - pending
> Bug #671780 [aptitude] Please move ~/.aptitude/cache to $XDG_CACHE_HOME (default ~/.cache)
> Removed tag(s) pending.
>> 
> End of message, stopping processing here.
> 
> Please contact me if you need assistance.
> -- 
> 587676: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=587676
> 647474: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=647474
> 671780: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=671780
> 720074: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=720074
> Debian Bug Tracking System
> Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Aptitude-devel mailing list
> Aptitude-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/aptitude-devel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-ctte-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140601151758.GA30663@lugh.itsari.org


----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

I really wanted to talk to her.
I just couldn't find an algorithm that fit.
 -- Peter Watts _Blindsight_ p294

Message #14 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: Javier Barroso <javibarroso@gmail.com>

Cc: 750135@bugs.debian.org, mandyke@gmail.com, dburrows@debian.org, abe@debian.org, mafm@debian.org

Subject: Re: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:29:28 -0700

On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Javier Barroso wrote:
> Sincerely I would expect this bug to be solved in less than a year. It
> has to been frustrating to be at Manuel circunstances. I know CTTE has
> been very very very busy , I'm understand this is not the biggest
> issue, but 8 month of not activities on git should be sufficient to
> give the power to Manuel and tell to Daniel to have a collaborative
> aptitude

The CTTE certainly has not been very active on this issue. That's
definitely our problem, but as near as I can tell, none of the parties
have been very active either.

Currently unresolved questions from me are the following:

1) Is there still a conflict here? What precisely is it?

2) What would a resolution of this conflict look like to the parties?

FWICT, it looks like Axel is also working on aptitude development; what
is his opinion of this issue?

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.
 -- Frederick Douglass

Message #19 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Javier Barroso <javibarroso@gmail.com>, mandyke@gmail.com, dburrows@debian.org, mafm@debian.org

Subject: Re: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 23:34:18 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

[In the following "Daniel" always refers to Daniel Hartwig, not to
Daniel Burrows. Daniel Burrows is no more involved in Aptitude's
development for quite a while. He's of course still welcome to
continue to contribute to Aptitude, at least from my point of view.]

Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Javier Barroso wrote:
> > Sincerely I would expect this bug to be solved in less than a year. It
> > has to been frustrating to be at Manuel circunstances. I know CTTE has
> > been very very very busy , I'm understand this is not the biggest
> > issue, but 8 month of not activities on git should be sufficient to
> > give the power to Manuel and tell to Daniel to have a collaborative
> > aptitude
> 
> The CTTE certainly has not been very active on this issue. That's
> definitely our problem, but as near as I can tell, none of the parties
> have been very active either.

No wonder. Daniel has kicked Manuel out of the Alioth project (at
least revoked his commit access), so Manuel can't really do any coding
work on Aptitude.

I must say that I'm not happy at all about this (IMHO anything else
but kind) move. Daniel might argue that this was necessary, but I
disagree.

> Currently unresolved questions from me are the following:
> 
> 1) Is there still a conflict here?

I fear so. I'd be happy to see Manuel back working on Aptitude, since
I haven't seen any commit or mail from Daniel in like 9 months or so.
But since Daniel kicked him out...

Actually, I'd like to see _both_ working on Aptitude again as they
approached mostly different sets of issues. Daniel mostly seemed to
work on a few bigger issues while Manuel fixed a lot of smaller, but
partially quite annoying issues.

> 2) What would a resolution of this conflict look like to the parties?

One thing which came to my mind was to revoke Alioth Project Admin
privileges from any of the conflicting parties to avoid such power
games in the future.

But then again, I didn't want to become part of those power games I'd
like to get rid of.

OTOH, if Daniel continues to be as MIA as he looked like in the past
year, we need a new Aptitude maintainer anyways. So it seems obvious
to me to put Manuel back in charge if he still wants to work on
Aptitude. A good date for making such a cut seems to be the start of
the Stretch release cycle, i.e. directly after the Jessie release.

Not having to take this decision on my own (for the reasons outlined
above), but having multiple other developers (e.g. the Tech CTTE)
backing an decision (whichever it will be) would be helpful, because I
really do not want to come under fire from any of the two parties.

I also suggested to use feature branches and reviewing them on the
mailing list before merging to not get in conflict during coding. But
despite some agreeing e-mails, this seemed to be of no avail.

> FWICT, it looks like Axel is also working on aptitude development;

Nope, not on development. I'm just doing bug triage and other
administrative stuff like caring about
https://aptitude.alioth.debian.org/. Doing C++ development is not what
I'm good at. (One of the reasons why I'm listed in Uploaders.)

You can count on me to continue doing Aptitude bug triage, sponsoring
Aptitude uploads, testing Aptitude releases, administrating the
Aptitude project on Alioth, maybe even do commits with regards to
packaging, documentation and typos. I'm a heavy Aptitude user and I
don't want to see it die, so that's how I try to contribute as I can't
do the C++ coding.

> what is his opinion of this issue?

At some point I had given up to get Daniel and Manuel working together
without attacking or provoking each other. But in some way, that's
still what I would like to see.

In the long run I'd like to see even more people working on Aptitude.

But for that, a possessive lead developer or power games are quite
hindering. IMHO one of the reasons Aptitude's development stalled
again are those power games we've seen. So I'd prefer a solution where
people who want to do stuff are also able to do it -- without getting
harassed by other people involved.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #24 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org>

To: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, 750135@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Javier Barroso <javibarroso@gmail.com>, mandyke@gmail.com, dburrows@debian.org, mafm@debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 08:01:59 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Quoting Axel Beckert (abe@debian.org):

> In the long run I'd like to see even more people working on Aptitude.
> 
> But for that, a possessive lead developer or power games are quite
> hindering. IMHO one of the reasons Aptitude's development stalled
> again are those power games we've seen. So I'd prefer a solution where
> people who want to do stuff are also able to do it -- without getting
> harassed by other people involved.


So do I. And I still have admin rights on aptitude on Alioth. Even
though I'm not that much active in aptitude's development.

Here's my proposal: 

- restore Manuel's commit rights
- have both me and Axel watch the aptitude-devel mailing list, not to
judge the technical validity of changes, but more following the
social aspects
- and see what happens...

It can't indeed be worse than the current situation anyway.

It can be done without "blessing" of the CTTE : after all, I'm admin
of the project, this was indeed granted to me by Daniel Burrows, the
original aptitude developer....precisely because he feared that him
becomign MIA would be an issue. And *I* am the one who granted Daniel
Hartwig admin rights *because* he was doing a very useful work to keep
aptitude development going on.

So, indeed, I think I'm legitimate enough to decide what is
best. Still, an advice from the CTTE wouldn't hurt.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #29 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

To: Javier Barroso <javibarroso@gmail.com>, 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 11:25:04 +0000

(Dropping a bunch of addresses, I believe that those that I removed
are subscribed to the bug report, the mailing list, MIA or not
interested).


Hello,

2015-03-27 21:29 GMT+00:00 Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>:
> On Fri, 27 Mar 2015, Javier Barroso wrote:
>> Sincerely I would expect this bug to be solved in less than a year. It
>> has to been frustrating to be at Manuel circunstances. I know CTTE has
>> been very very very busy , I'm understand this is not the biggest
>> issue, but 8 month of not activities on git should be sufficient to
>> give the power to Manuel and tell to Daniel to have a collaborative
>> aptitude
>
> The CTTE certainly has not been very active on this issue. That's
> definitely our problem, but as near as I can tell, none of the parties
> have been very active either.

I didn't want to insist on this in the mailing list or IRC meetings
because of all of the discussions about systemd and so on -- they were
more important, and all what happened kept the committee very busy for
months.  And after that because of the burnt-out of people and other
urgent questions for the freeze.

In the meantime, I was doing other more interesting and rewarding
things in Debian anyway... if nobody cared about aptitude enough to
keep an active development, so be it.


Overall I was not very active in aptitude after that, yes, I sent only
a few e-mails since then (in Oct/Nov) to the mailing list to reply to
some security questions of some user, possibly affecting apt (or
similar reports at the time in apt's mailing list); and others
discussing a bit with the apt team (David) about API/ABI breakages
that would affect aptitude.

If with not being active you mean that I have not been active at all
in the development of aptitude, other people already explained that it
was because I was effectively expelled from the development group (==
no commit rights).  The only thing that I can do is to send e-mails to
the mailing lists or bug reports, but why to reply to bugs if I cannot
fix anything in the repository, my contributions are blocked, and
otherwise there is nobody integrating the patches proposed by other
people for months or years?

I could have created a fork, or could have uploaded a new revision
package setting the repository to collab-maint, but I thought that
doing those kind of things would only create more confusion for
aptitude/Debian users and would not have helped the situation in
general.


> Currently unresolved questions from me are the following:
>
> 1) Is there still a conflict here? What precisely is it?
>
> 2) What would a resolution of this conflict look like to the parties?

The reply to both questions above is in my original request, specially
in the 4 paragraphs towards the end, between "Over the history of the
projects [...]" and "[...] to start with".

I think that all what I explained in the original request to the
committee applies now, because nothing changed, the last year only
added up in the same pattern.  I was expelled more than 1 year ago,
and sent the request to the committee 10 months ago, but the
development ceased again since then, mirroring what had happened in
previous years/cycles.

A quick glance to the development log [1] in 2013-2015 should explain
quite clearly the status of the project. (The commits in early January
authored by other people were added by me, picking from patches in BTS
or development branches -- it does not mean that those people were
active at that time).

[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/aptitude/aptitude.git/log/


The request to the CTTE was sent after consulting in private with
several people who know better about the procedures than I do, so I
think that it will be useful to come to a clear decision, and would
also be useful for similar cases that could arise around central tools
of the project in the future.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Message #34 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

To: Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org>, 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 22:19:20 +0200

]] Christian PERRIER 

Hi bubulle!

> Quoting Axel Beckert (abe@debian.org):
> 
> > In the long run I'd like to see even more people working on Aptitude.
> > 
> > But for that, a possessive lead developer or power games are quite
> > hindering. IMHO one of the reasons Aptitude's development stalled
> > again are those power games we've seen. So I'd prefer a solution where
> > people who want to do stuff are also able to do it -- without getting
> > harassed by other people involved.
> 
> 
> So do I. And I still have admin rights on aptitude on Alioth. Even
> though I'm not that much active in aptitude's development.
> 
> Here's my proposal: 
> 
> - restore Manuel's commit rights
> - have both me and Axel watch the aptitude-devel mailing list, not to
> judge the technical validity of changes, but more following the
> social aspects
> - and see what happens...
> 
> It can't indeed be worse than the current situation anyway.

I see where the proposal is coming from, but I'd like to ask you to hold
off on it a little bit.  I've mailed Daniel and asked him to comment on
the bug, so hopefully we can have his input soon and get this resolved.

(Of course, if Daniel's happy with that approach, and Manuel is too,
then I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.)

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Message #39 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 06:48:20 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Quoting Tollef Fog Heen (tfheen@err.no):

> > It can't indeed be worse than the current situation anyway.
> 
> I see where the proposal is coming from, but I'd like to ask you to hold
> off on it a little bit.  I've mailed Daniel and asked him to comment on
> the bug, so hopefully we can have his input soon and get this resolved.


No problem. I was indeed waiting to see comments to my proposal
without doing anything, anyway. I'll follow the issue as well to see
where it goes and help where I can.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #44 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 23:13:53 +0100

2015-03-29 21:19 Tollef Fog Heen:
>]] Christian PERRIER
>
>Hi bubulle!
>
>> Quoting Axel Beckert (abe@debian.org):
>>
>> > In the long run I'd like to see even more people working on Aptitude.
>> >
>> > But for that, a possessive lead developer or power games are quite
>> > hindering. IMHO one of the reasons Aptitude's development stalled
>> > again are those power games we've seen. So I'd prefer a solution where
>> > people who want to do stuff are also able to do it -- without getting
>> > harassed by other people involved.
>>
>>
>> So do I. And I still have admin rights on aptitude on Alioth. Even
>> though I'm not that much active in aptitude's development.
>>
>> Here's my proposal:
>>
>> - restore Manuel's commit rights
>> - have both me and Axel watch the aptitude-devel mailing list, not to
>> judge the technical validity of changes, but more following the
>> social aspects
>> - and see what happens...
>>
>> It can't indeed be worse than the current situation anyway.
>
>I see where the proposal is coming from, but I'd like to ask you to hold
>off on it a little bit.  I've mailed Daniel and asked him to comment on
>the bug, so hopefully we can have his input soon and get this resolved.
>
>(Of course, if Daniel's happy with that approach, and Manuel is too,
>then I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.)


The proposal of Christian could have been implemented 1 year ago, long before I
thought about submitting the issue to the CTTE.

When Daniel Hartwig removed permissions from me to commit, against the opinion
of the few people that cared to voice it, Axel and Christian refused to do this
(they were informed, and they are both admins of the project so they had the
power to do it).

And indeed, in my original request I left open the possibility of keeping Daniel
Hartwig as an admin:

 "Keeping him as member and contributing is completely fine for me; admin is
  also fine as long as somebody takes the responsibility for acting
  *immediately* if he starts doing the same things again (with me or somebody
  else).  I also think that it would be good if other people also contributed
  to this important project."

But this was only if somebody took the responsibility for *immediately*
reverting actions resulting from abusive behaviour as maintainer, should it
happen again.  10 months later without anybody doing anything about it, even
when Hartwig is MIA for many months, I do not consider this a good solution now.



So my request to the committee, independently of if I am going to get
permissions to commit again, is that Daniel Hartwig is removed as admin of the
aptitude project in Alioth, and question if he should be consider a maintainer
at all or if the package should be put out to adoption, for the reasons stated
in the original email and repeated below (now additionally with almost 10 months
being inactive/MIA since my request):

a) Technical

a.1) Daniel Burrows is the founder and only person who can say "this project is
    mine".  Neither Daniel Hartwig nor anybody around these days (including me)
    has been an historical maintainer of the package (perhaps Christian, but
    only the i18n part, AFAIK).

a.2) Daniel Hartwig arrived around Nov 2011, same as me (months after Daniel
    Burrows left).

    In practical terms, both about the "upstream" part and the package
    maintainance, Hartwig has been developing and actively maintaining aptitude
    only for less than a year -- mostly in 2011-2012, and only during a brief
    period of 2014 reacting to my return to the activity.  2013 was a barren
    year for development, bugs not addressed, and the package was NMUed for
    months without reaction.  Daniel Hartwig only released one version
    "recently", in June 2014, his previous one was in 2012-11-07.

    With the little that I did in a few weeks of 2014 (until kicked), I did
    about as much as Hartwig in 2013+2014 together, and triaged/closed more
    bugs.  I released 4 versions in early 2014, with numerous but small fixes
    -- that was the plan to try to reduce the humongous number of bugs, and
    Axel approved.

    In summary, in practical terms Hartwig has been neglecting both the
    upstream part and the package maintainance during most of the time that
    he's been listed as uploader/maintainer.

a.3) I do not claim to be a decisive developer of aptitude, and I don't want to
    be the only one taking decisions, or the sole/main admin or maintainer.

    But precisely because of that, I do not think that somebody with as little
    history and dedication in the project (both aptitude and Debian) as Hartwig
    should put himself in a position of gatekeeper of what goes into the
    project when somebody steps up after months/years of abandon, without
    giving any explanation, and only to disappear again when the sparks of new
    development are extinguished again.

    As a member of Debian, I believe that Hartwig's behaviour since 2012 has
    been harmful, and should not be allowed to repeat these actions if anybody
    with interest in reviving the project appears.

a.4) His reasons for rejecting many of my commits are not technically sound, in
    my opinion (as tech committee, I expect that you can form an opinion about
    that, if you wish).

    But crucially, one of the main reasons given was that they were interfering
    with private development which even now, more than 1 year later (and
    several years since the first announced plans), are not published.  These
    complaints were the same in 2012, when I decided to retire for the first
    time -- apparently my developments were interfering or would interfere with
    his future and unpublished changes.

b) Social

b.1) In any case, technical disagreements about my contributions did not warrant
    to take these extraordinary measures, not only against my opinion but
    against the opinion of those few who cared to express it in the mailing
    list at the time (who were at least happy of seeing some activity in
    aptitude).  I was the only one who went ahead to do something about the
    stalled development, so the only alternative to that has been the project
    activity flatlining for a year.

b.2) The refusal to give explanations or even discuss about the actions taken
    when several people are asking for it, is not acceptable in an open project
    like Debian, from my POV.

b.3) He was "member" of the project until he requested to Alioth admins to get
    admin permission of the project in Jan/Feb 2014.  The only significant
    action that he achieved with those powers was to kick me out without
    discussing it with the other admins (who, as said above, they did not want
    to undo... but that's another story).


So in summary, what I request to the CTTE is to decide:

1) if Daniel Hartwig should continue to be allowed to be admin of aptitude in
  Alitoh.

  With member status he can still commit and do any development necessary,
  should he wish so -- he does not need admin for anything practical.  I think
  that the Debian project should not allow him to continue to have admin powers
  on that project, when he acts recklessly (and Axel and Christian are admins,
  if somebody needs something done).

2) Given the stalled development in the last few years of the project, which in
  my opinion is quite important for Debian and derivatives, see if something
  more bold could be done to give more publicity and see if the project is
  revived.  For example, decide give the project up for adoption so hopefully
  somebody else --and not talking about me-- will step up.

  If I was him, by now I would have done that myself -- give the package for
  adoption, at least publish a RFH, or some message in debian-devel@... I don't
  know, but something.  I think that at this point, the Debian project as a
  whole should do something about it.


Cheers.
--
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Message #49 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

To: "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Cc: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2015 20:13:44 +0200

Hi all,

2015-03-29 21:19 Tollef Fog Heen:
>]] Christian PERRIER
>
>Hi bubulle!
>
>> Quoting Axel Beckert (abe@debian.org):
>>
>> > In the long run I'd like to see even more people working on Aptitude.
>> >
>> > But for that, a possessive lead developer or power games are quite
>> > hindering. IMHO one of the reasons Aptitude's development stalled
>> > again are those power games we've seen. So I'd prefer a solution where
>> > people who want to do stuff are also able to do it -- without getting
>> > harassed by other people involved.
>>
>>
>> So do I. And I still have admin rights on aptitude on Alioth. Even
>> though I'm not that much active in aptitude's development.
>>
>> Here's my proposal:
>>
>> - restore Manuel's commit rights
>> - have both me and Axel watch the aptitude-devel mailing list, not to
>> judge the technical validity of changes, but more following the
>> social aspects
>> - and see what happens...
>>
>> It can't indeed be worse than the current situation anyway.
>
>I see where the proposal is coming from, but I'd like to ask you to hold
>off on it a little bit.  I've mailed Daniel and asked him to comment on
>the bug, so hopefully we can have his input soon and get this resolved.
>
>(Of course, if Daniel's happy with that approach, and Manuel is too,
>then I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.)

Daniel has not responded to the bug at all within the two weeks (and a
few days) I asked him to, so I see no point in waiting further with
moving forward here.

My suggestion is basically to say yes to Manuel: Make him the maintainer
of aptitude and ask the Alioth admins to reinstate him as an admin,
removing Daniel.  Manuel is clearly interested in working on aptitude
and seems to be interested in having other people contribute as well.
Given aptitude currently has a lot of bugs and is an important package
in the Debian ecosystem, I'd like to move forward on this fairly soon.

I'm unsure to what, if any, extent we should comment on the social
conflict here.  I don't think it's productive for people to remove
others from projects unless they're actively harmful or MIA, but on the
other hand, I'm not sure stating that in a formal resolution is going to
make the world a better place either.

We'll need a formal resolution text and such, but are anybody opposed to
what I'm suggesting above, before we start on the wordsmithing?

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Message #54 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 22:47:16 +0200

]] Sam Hartman 

> A major advantage of this approach is that it can happen from within the
> aptitude project.  Christian has the technical authority to implement
> this.  He's asked for review of the social authority, but we could
> support this way of the aptitude project reorganizing itself without
> needing to override a maintainer or exclude daniel from making technical
> contributions if he reappears.

Nothing in my proposal would exclude Daniel from making technical
contributions though.

I'm happy enough to accept your suggested solution too, the practical
end result is pretty much the same.  The message we send might not be
the entirely the same, but I'd rather get it unblocked than have «my»
solution be preferred.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Message #59 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Cc: "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 18:46:34 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi all,

Tollef, thank you for having pushed this topic, we're heading towards a 
solution it seems.

Sorry to have taken so long to answer…

Le mercredi, 15 avril 2015, 20.13:44 Tollef Fog Heen a écrit :
> >> Quoting Axel Beckert (abe@debian.org):
> >> > In the long run I'd like to see even more people working on
> >> > Aptitude.
> >> > 
> >> > But for that, a possessive lead developer or power games are
> >> > quite
> >> > hindering. IMHO one of the reasons Aptitude's development stalled
> >> > again are those power games we've seen. So I'd prefer a solution
> >> > where people who want to do stuff are also able to do it --
> >> > without getting harassed by other people involved.
> >> 
> >> So do I. And I still have admin rights on aptitude on Alioth. Even
> >> though I'm not that much active in aptitude's development.
> >> 
> >> Here's my proposal:
> >> 
> >> - restore Manuel's commit rights
> >> - have both me and Axel watch the aptitude-devel mailing list, not
> >> to judge the technical validity of changes, but more following the
> >> social aspects
> >> - and see what happens...
> >> 
> >> It can't indeed be worse than the current situation anyway.
> >
> >I see where the proposal is coming from, but I'd like to ask you to
> >hold off on it a little bit.  I've mailed Daniel and asked him to
> >comment on the bug, so hopefully we can have his input soon and get
> >this resolved.
> >
> >(Of course, if Daniel's happy with that approach, and Manuel is too,
> >then I don't think anybody would have a problem with it.)
> 
> Daniel has not responded to the bug at all within the two weeks (and a
> few days) I asked him to, so I see no point in waiting further with
> moving forward here.
> 
> My suggestion is basically to say yes to Manuel: Make him the
> maintainer of aptitude and ask the Alioth admins to reinstate him as
> an admin, removing Daniel.

Given the situation (an unresponsive Daniel, a proposal from people with 
powers to push the situation forward), I'd be more inclined to say yes 
to Christian, without a formal resolution.

Given that we could not hear from Daniel (as of now), I think we're much 
now more in a typical "MIA" situation rather than in a "conflict 
resolution" situation. In this situation, I'd rather apply normal 
procedures than our "formal resolution" one: people who are admin on 
Alioth take it from there and apply their best judgment for the 
project's success, acknowledging Daniel's MIA status on aptitude's 
front.

> (…) I'm not sure stating that in a formal resolution is going to make
> the world a better place either.

I think the net result would be perceived as a blame of Daniel, judging 
his past actions, while we could not hear his side of the story. I'm not 
overly comfortable with this.

Cheers,
OdyX

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #64 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>

To: Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org>

Cc: 750135@bugs.debian.org, "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Status of #750135 (Maintainer of aptitude package)

Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 13:46:33 -0400

>>>>> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:


    Didier> Given the situation (an unresponsive Daniel, a proposal from
    Didier> people with powers to push the situation forward), I'd be
    Didier> more inclined to say yes to Christian, without a formal
    Didier> resolution.

Given that Christian has asked for additional support before moving
forward, I'd prefer to give him that.  I think the resolution should be
non-binding.  Something along the lines of We observed this fact.
Christian asked for input on whether this would be a good way forward.
The TC believes it would be.

Message #69 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Initial draft of resolution

Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 19:00:27 -0400

Proposed for your consideration and checked into git for your editing:

Background/Rationale (Constitution 6.1(5)): 

1. In #750135, the
technical committee was asked by Manuel Fernandez Montecelo who should
be the maintainer of the aptitude projectp.  He had been actively committing until his commit access was removed by Daniel Hartwig.  Manuel  and Daniel took over development of aptitude in 2011 with the support of Christian Perrier, an admin for the aptitude alioth project.  There was friction between Manuel and Daniel, which eventually resulted in  Manuel's commit access being revoked by Daniel.  Since then, Daniel has become inactive, and did not comment on the issue when requested by the technical committee.

2) During the discussion of this issue, Christian proposed that he and
Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects of aptitude development
and restore Manuel's commit access.  Christian still has
administrative rights and believes he has the technical power to implement his proposal.  However he wants review from a broader audience before implementing that proposal.


Advice (Constitution 6.1.5):

1.  The technical committee agrees that Christian has the power to implement his proposal and encourages him to do so.

2.  The committee agrees that restoring Manuel's committ access is a
good step to move Aptitude development forward.  Since there is a
clear way to accomplish this goal within the existing Aptitude project
support that approach.

3.  We hope that Christian and Axel will work to managed the social
aspects of the Aptitude project, working to recruit new developers,
building a stronger Aptitude development community, and establishing
policies and procedures that promote a collaborative team.  Sometimes
the skills necessary to grow a community ar different than the skills
to develop a project.  Through this approach we hope the Aptitude
community will gain both sets of skills.

4.  We thank Manuel for bringing this matter to our attention and
apologize for our delay in resolving this matter.

Message #74 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Initial draft of resolution

Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 08:32:09 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le dimanche, 17 mai 2015, 19.00:27 Sam Hartman a écrit :
> Proposed for your consideration and checked into git for your editing:

Thank you for this draft, it's a very good start.

I've pushed 5 isolated commits that make the draft text consistent in 
numbering, capitalization and names. Here come my (uncommitted) comments 
on the text:

> Background/Rationale (Constitution 6.1.5):
> 
> 1. In #750135, the Technical Committee was asked by Manuel Fernandez
> Montecelo who should be the maintainer of the Aptitude project. He
> had been actively committing until his commit access was removed by
> Daniel Hartwig. Manuel and Daniel took over development of Aptitude
> in 2011 with the support of Christian Perrier, an admin for the
> Aptitude alioth project. There was friction between Manuel and
> Daniel, which eventually resulted in Manuel's commit access being
> revoked by Daniel. Since then, Daniel has become inactive, and did
> not comment on the issue when requested by the Technical Committee.

That reads like a correct description of events as they have been 
presented to us.

> 2. During the discussion of this issue, Christian Perrier proposed
> that he and Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects of Aptitude
> development and restore Manuel's commit access. Christian still has
> administrative rights and believes he has the technical power to
> implement his proposal. However he wants review from a broader
> audience before implementing that proposal.

Ditto.

Did you intend to have these two paragraphs part of the actual decision, 
or not?

> Advice (Constitution 6.1.5):
> 
> 1. The Technical Committee agrees that Christian has the power to
> implement his proposal and encourages him to do so.

I'd replace "agrees" with "acknowledges", but beware of my en_CH !

> 2. The committee agrees that restoring Manuel's commit access is a
> good step to move Aptitude development forward. Since there is a
> clear way to accomplish this goal within the existing Aptitude
> project support that approach.

I don't understand this second sentence. Is there some punctuation 
hiccup?

> 3. We hope that Christian and Axel will work to managed the social
> aspects of the Aptitude project, working to recruit new developers,
> building a stronger Aptitude development community, and establishing
> policies and procedures that promote a collaborative team. Sometimes
> the skills necessary to grow a community ar different than the skills
> to develop a project. Through this approach we hope the Aptitude
> community will gain both sets of skills.

Although I don't disagree with the paragraph, I'm not overly comfortable 
with formalizing our hopes in a resolution. I'd rather drop the complete 
paragraph from the actual decision, eventually moving it to a non-formal 
part (either pre- or post- decision).

> 4. We thank Manuel for bringing this matter to our attention and
> apologize for our delay in resolving this matter.

Good.

As you probably noticed from my comments above, I'd rather have a longer 
"background" part and a small, but straight-to-the-point formal 
resolution text. Opinions?

Cheers,

OdyX

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #79 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>

To: Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org>

Cc: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Initial draft of resolution

Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 10:08:34 -0400

>>>>> "Didier" == Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org> writes:


    >> Background/Rationale (Constitution 6.1.5):
    >> 
    >> 1. In #750135, the Technical Committee was asked by Manuel
    >> Fernandez Montecelo who should be the maintainer of the Aptitude
    >> project. He had been actively committing until his commit access
    >> was removed by Daniel Hartwig. Manuel and Daniel took over
    >> development of Aptitude in 2011 with the support of Christian
    >> Perrier, an admin for the Aptitude alioth project. There was
    >> friction between Manuel and Daniel, which eventually resulted in
    >> Manuel's commit access being revoked by Daniel. Since then,
    >> Daniel has become inactive, and did not comment on the issue when
    >> requested by the Technical Committee.

    Didier> That reads like a correct description of events as they have
    Didier> been presented to us.

    >> 2. During the discussion of this issue, Christian Perrier
    >> proposed that he and Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects
    >> of Aptitude development and restore Manuel's commit
    >> access. Christian still has administrative rights and believes he
    >> has the technical power to implement his proposal. However he
    >> wants review from a broader audience before implementing that
    >> proposal.

    Didier> Ditto.

    Didier> Did you intend to have these two paragraphs part of the
    Didier> actual decision, or not?

Note that nothing in this resolution is formal at all.
We provide background and some advice to the aptitude process.
Only things that are part of the decision are things that are agreed by
the technical committee.
Yes, I believe it's important that we get a summary of our rationale and
background as something that  the TC agrees to, so yes, I believe that
should be part of the decision.

If we had a part of this resolution that had any force--that was a
statement of policy, a resolution of conflicting juristictions,
overiding a maintainer, deciding a matter delegated to us, I'd prefer to
keep the part of the text with actual force short.

    >> Advice (Constitution 6.1.5):
    >> 
    >> 1. The Technical Committee agrees that Christian has the power to
    >> implement his proposal and encourages him to do so.

    Didier> I'd replace "agrees" with "acknowledges", but beware of my
    Didier> en_CH !

To me agrees is more active, more supportive.
However I don't care at all about this.

    >> 2. The committee agrees that restoring Manuel's commit access is
    >> a good step to move Aptitude development forward. Since there is
    >> a clear way to accomplish this goal within the existing Aptitude
    >> project support that approach.
s:support:we support:
I'll go make that change.

    Didier> I don't understand this second sentence. Is there some
    Didier> punctuation hiccup?

    >> 3. We hope that Christian and Axel will work to managed the
    >> social aspects of the Aptitude project, working to recruit new
    >> developers, building a stronger Aptitude development community,
    >> and establishing policies and procedures that promote a
    >> collaborative team. Sometimes the skills necessary to grow a
    >> community ar different than the skills to develop a
    >> project. Through this approach we hope the Aptitude community
    >> will gain both sets of skills.

    Didier> Although I don't disagree with the paragraph, I'm not overly
    Didier> comfortable with formalizing our hopes in a resolution. I'd
    Didier> rather drop the complete paragraph from the actual decision,
    Didier> eventually moving it to a non-formal part (either pre- or
    Didier> post- decision).

Again, I'm hoping that the TC as a whole will support this so I want it
 to be part of the resolution.

Message #84 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Call for Vote: Resolution on Aptitude Maintainer

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:08:27 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I here-by call for a vote  on the following text (option A); the other
option is FD.
I will be out much of the next two weeks so if the vote becomes
resolved I'd appreciate it if someone could step in and announce the
decision.

Background/Rationale:

1. In #750135, the Technical Committee was asked by Manuel Fernandez
   Montecelo who should be the maintainer of the Aptitude project.

   Manuel Fernandez Montecelo had been actively committing until his
   commit access was removed by Daniel Hartwig.
  
   Manuel Fernandez Montecelo and Daniel Hartwig took over development
   of Aptitude in 2011 with the support of Christian Perrier, an admin
   for the Aptitude alioth project.
  
   There was friction between Manuel Fernandez Montecelo and Daniel
   Hartwig, which eventually resulted in Manuel Fernandez Montecelo's
   commit access being revoked by Daniel Hartwig.
  
   Since then, Daniel Hartwig has become inactive, and did not comment
   on the issue when requested by the Technical Committee.

2. During the discussion of this issue, Christian Perrier proposed
   that he and Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects of Aptitude
   development and restore Manuel Fernandez Montecelo's commit access.

   Christian still has administrative rights and believes he has the
   technical power to implement his proposal, but requested the advice
   of the technical committee before doing so.

Using the power of the technical committee to provide advice (§6.1.5):

1. The Technical Committee agrees that Christian has the power to
   implement his proposal and encourages him to do so.

2. We hope that Christian and Axel will work to manage the social
   aspects of the Aptitude project, working to recruit new developers,
   building a stronger Aptitude development community, and
   establishing policies and procedures that promote a collaborative
   team.

3. We thank Manuel Fernandez Montecelo for bringing this matter to our
   attention and apologize for our delay in resolving this matter.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #89 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Call for Vote: Resolution on Aptitude Maintainer

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 08:18:00 -0400

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

>>>>> "Sam" == Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org> writes:

    Sam> I here-by call for a vote on the following text (option A); the
    Sam> other option is FD.  I will be out much of the next two weeks
    Sam> so if the vote becomes resolved I'd appreciate it if someone
    Sam> could step in and announce the decision.

I vote A -> FD on the vote for #750135.

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #94 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Call for Vote: Resolution on Aptitude Maintainer

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:43:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le lundi, 15 juin 2015, 08.08:27 Sam Hartman a écrit :
> I here-by call for a vote  on the following text (option A); the other
> option is FD.
> (…)
> Using the power of the technical committee to provide advice (§6.1.5):
> 
> 1. The Technical Committee agrees that Christian has the power to
>    implement his proposal and encourages him to do so.
> 
> 2. We hope that Christian and Axel will work to manage the social
>    aspects of the Aptitude project, working to recruit new developers,
> building a stronger Aptitude development community, and
>    establishing policies and procedures that promote a collaborative
>    team.
> 
> 3. We thank Manuel Fernandez Montecelo for bringing this matter to our
> attention and apologize for our delay in resolving this matter.

I vote A > FD.

Cheers,
OdyX

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #99 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Call for Vote: Resolution on Aptitude Maintainer

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 06:41:48 -0700

On Mon, 15 Jun 2015, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I here-by call for a vote  on the following text (option A); the other
> option is FD.

I vote A > FD.

> I will be out much of the next two weeks so if the vote becomes
> resolved I'd appreciate it if someone could step in and announce the
> decision.

I can take care of this once the outcome is certain.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

Message #104 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Tollef Fog Heen <tfheen@err.no>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Call for Vote: Resolution on Aptitude Maintainer

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:11:22 +0200

]] Sam Hartman 

> I here-by call for a vote  on the following text (option A); the other
> option is FD.
> I will be out much of the next two weeks so if the vote becomes
> resolved I'd appreciate it if someone could step in and announce the
> decision.

I vote A > FD.  (Unsigned, since I'm travelling.)

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are

Message #109 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Call for Vote: Resolution on Aptitude Maintainer

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:38:56 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 08:08:27AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:

> I here-by call for a vote  on the following text (option A); the other
> option is FD.

I vote A > FD.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #114 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Call for Vote: Resolution on Aptitude Maintainer

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 10:54:02 -0700

On Tue, 16 Jun 2015, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 08:08:27AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
> 
> > I here-by call for a vote  on the following text (option A); the other
> > option is FD.
> 
> I vote A > FD.

With this, the outcome is no longer in doubt, and option A has won. I
will announce and record the decision later today.

-- 
Don Armstrong                      http://www.donarmstrong.com

in Just-
spring      when the world is mud-
luscious the little lame baloonman 

whistles       far       and wee 
 -- e.e. cummings "[in Just-]"

Message #119 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Cc: mafm@debian.org, bubulle@debian.org, mandyke@gmail.com

Subject: Re: [CTTE #750135] Aptitude Project Maintainer

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 17:26:15 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

Don Armstrong wrote:
> 2. During the discussion of this issue, Christian Perrier proposed
>    that he and Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects of Aptitude
>    development and restore Manuel Fernandez Montecelo's commit access.
> 
>    Christian still has administrative rights and believes he has the
>    technical power to implement his proposal, but requested the advice
>    of the technical committee before doing so.
> 
> Using the power of the technical committee to provide advice (§6.1.5):
> 
> 1. The Technical Committee agrees that Christian has the power to
>    implement his proposal and encourages him to do so.

I've allowed myself to restore Manuel's commit access on behalf of
Christian.

For that I've added Manuel's account "mafm" as project member. I think
he had access through his old account "mafm-guest" before -- as he
became DD after he joined the Aptitude project initially.

> 2. We hope that Christian and Axel will work to manage the social
>    aspects of the Aptitude project, working to recruit new developers,
>    building a stronger Aptitude development community, and
>    establishing policies and procedures that promote a collaborative
>    team.

To prevent further escalations like those which led to this CTTE
ticket, I've revoked Daniel's administrative permissions on the
project -- but of course he continues to have commit permissions and
I'd be happy if he continues to contribute to aptitude.

This leaves Christian and me as project administrators for now.

> 3. We thank Manuel Fernandez Montecelo for bringing this matter to our
>    attention and apologize for our delay in resolving this matter.

Thanks to the Technical Committee for its work on the issue.

		Regards, Axel
-- 
 ,''`.  |  Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>, http://people.debian.org/~abe/
: :' :  |  Debian Developer, ftp.ch.debian.org Admin
`. `'   |  4096R: 2517 B724 C5F6 CA99 5329  6E61 2FF9 CD59 6126 16B5
  `-    |  1024D: F067 EA27 26B9 C3FC 1486  202E C09E 1D89 9593 0EDE

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #124 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian PERRIER <bubulle@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Cc: mafm@debian.org, mandyke@gmail.com

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: [CTTE #750135] Aptitude Project Maintainer

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 19:02:11 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Quoting Axel Beckert (abe@debian.org):
> Hi,
> 
> Don Armstrong wrote:
> > 2. During the discussion of this issue, Christian Perrier proposed
> >    that he and Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects of Aptitude
> >    development and restore Manuel Fernandez Montecelo's commit access.
> > 
> >    Christian still has administrative rights and believes he has the
> >    technical power to implement his proposal, but requested the advice
> >    of the technical committee before doing so.
> > 
> > Using the power of the technical committee to provide advice (§6.1.5):
> > 
> > 1. The Technical Committee agrees that Christian has the power to
> >    implement his proposal and encourages him to do so.
> 
> I've allowed myself to restore Manuel's commit access on behalf of
> Christian.

Great, thanks Axel. I was waiting for the official announcement  to do
the same but that's of course absolutely not a problme. Thanks for
your action.

And thanks to the CTTE careful work. Even though the issue would seem
quite obvious and was not only a technical issue, I think it's
important to have it endorsed by an official Debian governing body.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #129 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: "Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

To: Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>

Cc: 750135@bugs.debian.org, mafm@debian.org, Christian Perrier <bubulle@debian.org>, Daniel Hartwig <mandyke@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [CTTE #750135] Aptitude Project Maintainer

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 21:15:14 +0100

2015-06-19 16:26 GMT+01:00 Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org>:
> Hi,
>
> Don Armstrong wrote:
>> 2. During the discussion of this issue, Christian Perrier proposed
>>    that he and Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects of Aptitude
>>    development and restore Manuel Fernandez Montecelo's commit access.
>>
>>    Christian still has administrative rights and believes he has the
>>    technical power to implement his proposal, but requested the advice
>>    of the technical committee before doing so.
>>
>> Using the power of the technical committee to provide advice (§6.1.5):
>>
>> 1. The Technical Committee agrees that Christian has the power to
>>    implement his proposal and encourages him to do so.
>
> I've allowed myself to restore Manuel's commit access on behalf of
> Christian.
>
> For that I've added Manuel's account "mafm" as project member. I think
> he had access through his old account "mafm-guest" before -- as he
> became DD after he joined the Aptitude project initially.
>
>> 2. We hope that Christian and Axel will work to manage the social
>>    aspects of the Aptitude project, working to recruit new developers,
>>    building a stronger Aptitude development community, and
>>    establishing policies and procedures that promote a collaborative
>>    team.
>
> To prevent further escalations like those which led to this CTTE
> ticket, I've revoked Daniel's administrative permissions on the
> project -- but of course he continues to have commit permissions and
> I'd be happy if he continues to contribute to aptitude.
>
> This leaves Christian and me as project administrators for now.
>
>> 3. We thank Manuel Fernandez Montecelo for bringing this matter to our
>>    attention and apologize for our delay in resolving this matter.
>
> Thanks to the Technical Committee for its work on the issue.

Same here, thanks to the Tech Ctte -- and also Axel and Christian.


Cheers.
-- 
Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo <manuel.montezelo@gmail.com>

Message #134 received at 750135-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Don Armstrong <don@debian.org>

To: debian-devel-announce@lists.debian.org

Subject: [CTTE #750135] Aptitude Project Maintainer

Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2015 07:28 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

The technical committee was asked in #750135 to address who would
maintain the Aptitude project.

==== RESOLUTION ====

Background/Rationale:

1. In #750135, the Technical Committee was asked by Manuel Fernandez
   Montecelo who should be the maintainer of the Aptitude project.

   Manuel Fernandez Montecelo had been actively committing until his
   commit access was removed by Daniel Hartwig.
  
   Manuel Fernandez Montecelo and Daniel Hartwig took over development
   of Aptitude in 2011 with the support of Christian Perrier, an admin
   for the Aptitude alioth project.
  
   There was friction between Manuel Fernandez Montecelo and Daniel
   Hartwig, which eventually resulted in Manuel Fernandez Montecelo's
   commit access being revoked by Daniel Hartwig.
  
   Since then, Daniel Hartwig has become inactive, and did not comment
   on the issue when requested by the Technical Committee.

2. During the discussion of this issue, Christian Perrier proposed
   that he and Axel Beckert could watch the social aspects of Aptitude
   development and restore Manuel Fernandez Montecelo's commit access.

   Christian still has administrative rights and believes he has the
   technical power to implement his proposal, but requested the advice
   of the technical committee before doing so.

Using the power of the technical committee to provide advice (§6.1.5):

1. The Technical Committee agrees that Christian has the power to
   implement his proposal and encourages him to do so.

2. We hope that Christian and Axel will work to manage the social
   aspects of the Aptitude project, working to recruit new developers,
   building a stronger Aptitude development community, and
   establishing policies and procedures that promote a collaborative
   team.

3. We thank Manuel Fernandez Montecelo for bringing this matter to our
   attention and apologize for our delay in resolving this matter.

==== END OF RESOLUTION ====



Please see http://bugs.debian.org/750135 for discussion of
this bug.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #139 received at 750135@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Didier 'OdyX' Raboud <odyx@debian.org>

To: 750135@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#750135: Call for Vote: Resolution on Aptitude Maintainer

Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2015 17:03:45 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Le mardi, 16 juin 2015, 10.54:02 Don Armstrong a écrit :
> With this, the outcome is no longer in doubt, and option A has won. I
> will announce and record the decision later today.

This was announced to debian-devel-announce in 
<20150619142800.GA8278@qor.donarmstring.com>, and was published on the 
website too, I therefore bounced Don's mail to -done, closing this 
issue.

Cheers,
OdyX

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.