First of all, a suggestion from me. I would like to change names a bit, so there are names for some groups as well. Here's my proposal: - Debian Developing Contributor (DDC) = what's currently called DM - Debian Non-Developing Contributor (DNDC) = what's called DC in the proposal. - Debian Contributor (DC) = DDC + DNDC. - Debian Developing Member (DDM) = what's called DD in the proposal. - Debian Non-Developing Member (DNDM) = what's called DME in the proposal. - Debian Member (DM) = DDM + DNDM. - Debian Key-owner (DK) = DM + DC I'll be using these abreviations below, and to limit confusion I changed quotes so they use it as well. When really talking about "current" things, I use them unabreviated. I suggest others to do the same. (This is my view of Debian-style consensus-building: just do things how you consider them right, and hope others will follow your lead.) To avoid confusion about DM (which has a meaning in both naming schemes, which is not the same), I recommend everyone to explicitly say which naming scheme they're using. If you don't mention this, I'll assume you'll be using the same scheme as the post you reply to (if any). On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 10:23:24PM -0200, Margarita Manterola wrote: > I'm quite disappointed on this being informed as a done thing, without > the project as a whole being asked for an opinion. The mail talks about a proposal. I took that as something which is open for discussion. On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:29:53PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > Debian Contributor > > ------------------ > Basically, they need to pass the ID check, agree to the Social > Contract/DFSG and have successfully answered a set of questions > similar to the ones used in the current first P&P step, to keep doing > the same thing they have been doing all this time. No. Current Debian Maintainers also need an ID check, agree to SC/DFSG/DMUP and be advocated. The only thing that is added (and that was made clear by Joerg), is that they need to answer a very limited set of questions. Also, I don't think this is supposed to change anything to the sponsoring system, so people who use sponsors can continue to do so as well, without the questions (or the other checks). I do have one question: the current Debian Maintainer process has some features which the New Maintainer process does not have. I'm mostly thinking of the fact that advocation mails must include reasons why the prospective DC is a good candidate. Another post mentioned the yearly ping. I would like to keep those things (and thus add them to the DC process). > So this basically requires Debian Maintainers to do the (somewhat > reduced) P&P and T&S questions, and I don't see the real reason for > this. The idea behind Debian Maintainers is to maintain a package one > knows how to maintain. Those people are getting upload rights to the archive. Don't you think it's reasonable that the project wants people to show that they won't mess things up before giving such a priviledge to them? Becoming a Debian Maintainer is supposed to be a light-weight version of the New Maintainer process. It's not a "I'll skip the New Maintainer process entirely"-version. > The only reason I can see here is that DDs are not being trusted in > their advocations, which is a far worse problem that won't get solved > by this. We have over 1000 members. That's way too much to use the "if you have 1 invitation, you're in"-system. Looking at the recent flamewar, I'm pretty sure almost every DM has at least one other DM whose advocation they don't trust. So I don't think "one advocation is not enough" is a problem at all. It's just a result of having many members. Don't forget that this is a quick thing. People who don't care enough to answer some quick questions (or show in some other way that they can handle the responsibility) aren't interested enough to get the priveledge we're talking about, IMO. > > - ensures that the interest in Debian isn't short-term. > > Why do people keep thinking this is a good thing? If people only have short-term interest, that's not a bad thing in itself. But in this case we're talking about giving them long-term priviledges (upload any package; vote; become DPL, that sort of thing). We want members of our project to have a long-term interest, don't you agree? > > - enables them to learn more about the workings in Debian and generally > > helps them for the next step. > > They should be doing this on their own, and not force an arbitrary limit on > them. What if they did this _before_ applying for DC/DM status? In the proposal, there is no help during these 6 months. So basically, if people want to do this on their own, the project will ask them to say so before doing that (in the proposal). Saying so means applying for DC status. Applying for DM is not possible before those 6 months are over. You seem to want to rush total outsiders into the most priviledged positions of the project. Why would that be a good thing? What is the problem of letting people work 6 months with slightly fewer rights? > While you might not intend that, it still does. DDMs would be DNDMs + > general upload rights, which is clearly a DNDM < DDM relationship. ... > You say there is no first or second class, but DDMs would drop _down_ > to DNDMs. Of course there technically is a full and almost full rights membership. What I think he means to say, is that DNDMs should not be looked down upon, and that they do get everything they need from the project. Personally, I think a DNDM should have full upload rights as well. After all, it's well possible that a translator will do an NMU, for example. Still, I like the idea to give them a different name, because their general role in the project is different (not less or more, just different) from DDMs. It's also a reason I propose the new naming. Most of the time, people will be talking about DMs or DCs, not about DN?D[MC]s. With the current naming, people would continue talking about DDs all the time, while really meaning "DDs and DMEs". This discussion is an exception, of course; Due to its subject we are talking a lot about all roles here. Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature