On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 08:22:56PM +0100, Jan Hauke Rahm wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 05:36:45PM +0000, Martin Meredith wrote: > > In debian, Membership implies upload rights, which is another thing that I think > > that Ubuntu do well. Membership shouldn't be just for those that are DDs. I > > think that membership (which implies voting rights) should be available to those > > who provide a sustained contribution to the debian project. Whether it be > > through Translations, artwork, advocacy, sponsorship, package maintenace, etc > > etc. > > I'm not sure but wouldn't that add a lot of bureaucracy? I find it even > hard to measure the contribution of a translator (amount of subversion > commits against long diffs sent in per mail), even worse it is with > artwork or similar, but sponsorship? Would every sponsor then be a DM or > just those spending more than $money for it? > For me that sounds like many new rules with very different opinions > about what justifies a DM status. Sponsors etc I mean people who make a significant contribution to the project via sponsorship. Say for example, someone who donates a machine, bandwidth etc. Not someone who dumps a couple of $ across via paypal now and then. > > In my opinion, there should be a distinct divide between being a Debian Member, > > and a Debian Developer. I'm pretty sure that there are numerous people out there > > who contribute to Debian in a significant manner, without actually doing any > > package maintenance. > > I agree fully. There are e.g. translators who work for Debian for many > years now and contribute a lot IMHO. But OTOH I think there are just a > few who *only* do translation work without having the technical skills > for going through NM. That's why I thought Debian could have something > like an exception in NM what you would call "hand wave". > That would definitely not work with every artworker, sponsor etc., > though. Again, I'm more on about a seperate "Debian Member" status. > > Along with this divide, I think that being a Debian Developer (hereby shortened > > to the "defacto" DD) should imply Debian Membership. This meaning that someone > > can apply to become a Debian Member (DM)) without having to become a DD, but > > anyone who applies to be a DD should either be automatically granted DM status, > > or have to apply for that first. > > > > I think that for Membership, a suitable board should be setup (or multiple > > boards, in the case of an overwhelming amount of applicants) that, if a > > concensus is met between them, would be allowed to grant DM status to a person. > > Either that, or a prospective member would have to get a certain amount of DMs > > to advocate their becoming a member, which could then become an automated > > process. DMs would also have the opportunity to raise an objection to someone > > becoming a member, at which point, it would then either goto the "board " for a > > decision, or require the applicant to find more advocates. > > > > I don't think however, that this should be the case for becoming a DD. In the > > case of someone aplying for a DD, I believe that they should either have to go > > through NM as it stands, or have a "board" of people qualified to distinguish > > the applicant's ability (say for example, FD + DAM, or similar) "hand wave" the > > person through. > > > > I also think that the current "Debian Maintainer" should stay as it is (though > > possiby be renamed to something like "Debain Code Contributor" (DCC), or work in > > a similar manner to the DM process suggested above. > > Although I like your idea I'm not convinced that this is the right > approach. You have good points; respecting more contributors can IMHO > absolutely be a goal for Debian. But the way you describe would lead to > many different states a contributer could be in which *I think* leads to > more confusion instead of a clear membership system (which should be a > goal for Debian as well). > Two Maintainers could still be "simple" maintainers (meaning not being > DDs with full upload rights) but one of them has voting rights while the > other one doesn't because one of them applied to become a Member. Both > of them had advocates to become a Debian Maintainer -- why would those > advocates refuse to support their becoming a Member with voting rights? > And the other way round: why would people not become a Member of Debian > without even knowing general points of the project? > ...I should probably stop writing, it confuses me even now... do you > support a "New Membership process" for DFSG, DMUP and such stuff > parallel to NM for technical stuff? Again, with someone who is a Debian Maintainer, I'd assume their Membership to be implied from this. If you got accepted as a Maintainer/Developer, then you'd have membership to the project. I'm basically suggesting that, along with the current process(es) we also have a process where someone can become a member without any upload rights. I'm also suggesting that current Maintainers/DDs should have this membership implied from the DM/DD status (which DDs already do) > I think I don't see where this is going but even that makes me think > that it's already too complicated/sophisticated... isn't it? > > Hauke
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature