Re: Debian Membership
Matthew Johnson wrote:
My goals with changing the membership procedures are:
- To turn NM into a more evolutionary process where some privileges and
rights are granted earlier in the process and the qualifications for the
later parts are based mainly on the work done with the reduced privileges
- To make some of those reduced privileges legitimate goals for people to
aspire to in their own right
- To acknowledge more types of contribution
- To retain at least some of the oversight and checks of the current NM
process for all of the technical parts of the membership process
- To decouple of technical and political positions in the membership
Being part of the project, particularly with upload rights, is something I
believe _should_ be difficult. This restriction on access to the archive is one
of our strengths, it gives us a higher quality of packaging (yes, there are
exceptions, but they should be the exception, not the rule) than would
otherwise be possible.
I'm confused about your intents, reading last quoted paragraph with the
"To turn NM into a more evolutionary process".
I totally agree that the upload right should be difficult to gain.
But the frequent discussions about NEW queue give us a lot of informations:
- we want easier upload right (e.g. for NEW packages)
- we suck on upload quality (only on NEW queue ???)
- we must be anal/fundamentalist on license checks (not only on NEW queue).
Thus:
- we (DD) must improve => I would like some QA on existing DDs on new proposal
- how can we trust to DMs, if they don't have technical review and license review?
The last point seems to contradict common interpretation of "to turn NM into a
more evolutionary process".
In conclusion:
- a agree with more type of contributors, and more fine grained access control
(translators, bug checkers and patcher, QA, infrastructure ...)
- vote only on "makers" (uploader, translator, ...) (who makes something in last years).
- upload should be difficult
- quality control on existing members (to force not to be to lazy)
ciao
cate
Reply to: