On Thursday 06 April 2006 15:29, JC Helary wrote: > Nobody's saying that you are going to stop being a developer. You can > be proud of what you do being a developer. You've earned that status. > > But requiring people who are not software developers to understand > they suddenly have become developers because Debian is special is a > little far fetched. > The bug is in the relation between "from new maintainer->to > developer" and the corollary "other contributors don't _need_ to > become developers". I really don't think that the current terminology is gonna be a problem IF the NM-page make it clear that the process is open to non-package maintainers. Now obviously the current current NM-corner doesn't do a good enough job of that, which is a reason to work on rewording it so the page does make clear that the process _is_ open to non-package-maintainers (something that's being worked on elsewhere in this thread) I think it should be apperant at this point that changing the terminology from 'New Maintainer' and 'Debian Developer' to something else is controversial enough that we're not likely to generate a consensus on it any time soon. So could we please focus on the changes we can get consensus on? Also even if -from an outsiders perspective- the jargon used is quirky and strange. I have to wonder: if one is not even willing to look at the jargon used by the project from the projects point of view. Then why on earth would one be applying to NM-process in the first place? And how on earth would one expect to pass the philosyphy and procedures part of the process? -- Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB) 2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Attachment:
pgpHcYyVOezVS.pgp
Description: PGP signature