On 22/10/08 at 23:33 +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Developer Status > ================ Like others, I'm uncomfortable with the way this is being announced. Also, I really want to thank you for starting this discussion now. Having been personally involved in trying to delay the release, I appreciate the help. > If you are an existing Debian Developer or Debian Maintainer, don't be > afraid, we are not going to take anything away from you. So we, power-hungry DDs and DMs, are fine. Thank you for reassuring us. > and keyring managers > would like to remain the authoritative source for "who is in Debian". Indeed, that's a problem. What about changing the DM process so that keyring managers are responsible for this keyring as well? > Debian is about developing a free operating system, but there's more > in an operating system than just software and packages. If we want > translators, documentation writers, artists, free software advocates, > et al. to get endorsed by the project and feel proud for it, we need > some way to acknowledge that. This is where our proposal comes in. Could you point to some non-programmers contributors that would be interested into that process? Have you talked to them about it? > Debian Contributor > ------------------ > Debian Maintainer > ----------------- > Debian Member > ------------- > Debian Developer > ---------------- I really liked the fact that it was possible to explain Debian's different developers status in 30 seconds. Couldn't we find a way to adapt the current architecture to fit in the additional statuses? > A DM has to pass the same checks a DC has and very few questions from the > T&S part[DCDMQ]. > > A (very) small T&S basically, the most important T&S questions for them. So you are putting additional load on people who help with the NM process, while those people are already overloaded. > They are allowed to upload their own (source) package. The allowed list > of (source) packages to upload can be edited by any member of the NM > committee[NMC], who will do a package check before they add new packages > to the DM's list. There's a problem with DM currently: it doesn't work well with massively comaintained packages. For example, if you have: - a team with DMs DMa and DMb - DMa became DM to maintain Pa - DMb became DM to maintain Pb - DMa wants to help with the maintainance of Pb, but should not be given upload rights for Pb - DMb wants to help with the maintainance of Pa, but should not be given upload rights for Pa Then you have a problem. If you are maintaining a centralized list for DM upload rights, please implement it as a list of (DM, Package), not just as a list of (Package). Or even better, a list of (DM, Package, DD who endorsed this DM for this Package). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: lucas@nussbaum.fr GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature