-=| gregor herrmann, Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 11:35:54AM +0100 |=- > It is "wide-open" but I guess _if_ the group wants to use the DM > status it's the only realistic way to go. > > What I'd like to see are statements of the active DDs of the group > before we make this not unimportant addition to our internal policy. I have the following concern I'd like addressed before going "wide open". Imagine package $P now has as Uploaders: $A and $B (non-DDs). $A gets DM status. I am pretty confident that $A is capable of maintaining $P, so on $A's request, I upload $P with DM: yes. $A is happy and so am I. Next month, $B, who also maintains non-pkg-perl package $Q, gets DM status because his sponsor is tired of uploading $Q and is pretty confident that $B can handle $Q appropriately. Bang! $B can upload $P too. I gave $B this right, *unintentionaly*. Question 1: Should we worry about such scenario? I mean, if $B got DM status, s/he already agreed to follow the policies etc. My concern with this is that if agreeing to follow policies was enough, DMs might as well be treated as DDs :) Question 2: how to avoid this unintentional giving of upload rights? My answer to this is to clean Uploaders: list before uploading $P with DM-Yes from all non-DDs, except $A. This would mean we change our polocy about the Uploaders: field that whoever makes a change worth noting in changelog, adds him/herself to Uploaders. The nice thing about this policy is that it makes the contributor feel more responsible and easier for him/her to track his/her work via packages.qa.d.o pages. (Note that the fact that $B contributed to $P would not be wiped, as changelog would keep $B's entries). So, what do you think about such approach? -- dam JabberID: dam@jabber.minus273.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature