On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 11:21:14PM +0000, Will Newton wrote: > On Thursday 19 Feb 2004 10:30 pm, Henning Makholm wrote: > > > Letting people into the project and giving them upload rights, votes, > > et cetera, is a fairly serious matter. I, as a user, would not as > > happily use Debian if this was done solely on the basis of one > > individual's judgement. No matter whether that individual is > > trustworthy in general, he is human and may make mistakes. > > I would agree with that. On the other hand it is worth thinking about the > question of whether Debian gets the accept/reject balance right. > Yeah, because there were soooooooooooooooooo many rejections within the last months ... > > Does it follow by logical necessity that the third person has to be > > the DAM? There has to be someone in that position, someone with the > > guts to sometimes say no where the AM has said yes. And it is > > desirable that, if possible, it is the same person each time, for > > consistency in the processs. So there we have the DAM's job > > description. > > I disagree. I don't think it is desirable that it be one person and they be > "consistent". It absolutely is. > I belive that will risks a monoculture of developers. If, as seems to be have > been suggested, the DAM has a problem with impatient people, then we get no > impatient people in Debian, regardless of ability. Just because you happen > to have the "personality flaw de jour" I don't believe you should be excluded > from Debian. > James did *not* say "impatient", he said "ridiculously impatient". Not that this applies to Goswin, but to be honest, I don't feel like seeing people in the project who troll because their NEW package got not accepted within two days. > I would prefer: > > 1. A committee of maybe 3-5 people (that rotates members etc.) That's not enough. The danger of either the DAM or an applicant having too much influence at three or five people at the same time is too big. > 2. A set of guidelines that include, but do not limit, why a NM may be > rejected. Reasons for rejection should be found individually and explained in an exhaustive way for every single case. > 3. A public mailing list where all deliberations are archived (or even a > debian-private alike list if that is too much). This would, at least, make asking the applicant absolutely necessary. Many people probably won't have their rejection discussed publically. > 4. If the a committee member (or DAM) has a personal problem with a NM, they > should declare a conflict of interest and let some vice-DAM or vice committee > member take their place in that case. > That's rubbish. There is nobody inside the project who has so much experience with judging others like James. > It is my belief that that would be fairer than the current system. > It's my conviction that is is completely unnecessary. > I think the monthly flamewar should be a hint. Even if you personally do not > believe there is a problem with the NM process: > > - Do you believe the regular flamewars are a heinous waste of time and need > to stop? It's not my problem if people think they have enough time to start flamewars, is it? > - Do you believe it is inevitable that these flamewars will occur? > Andrew Suffield once mentioned the "stupidity of people" on #debian-devel at FreeNode. So, yes, it probably is. With any system. > I would answer Yes and No. I think we can take steps to minimize the amount of > NM process flamage. > -- .''`. Martin Loschwitz Debian GNU/Linux developer : :' : madkiss@madkiss.org madkiss@debian.org `. `'` http://www.madkiss.org/ people.debian.org/~madkiss/ `- Use Debian GNU/Linux 3.0! See http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature