Re: Developer Status

[Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at>]

* Bas Wijnen <wijnen@debian.org> [2008-10-23 09:59:09 CEST]:
> 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.

 This is misleading because a DME is (also) an enhanced version of a DM,
i.e. a DME is allowed to upload their own packages and can be a
developing contributor. Your distinction doesn't make it clear between
DDs that can upload any package and those that can only upload a
specific set of packages. Where Joerg's proposal (which I wholeheartly
support) made the clear distinction between the full DD state that isn't
limited in any sense and the limited upload allowance (even as limited
as no package at all) you draw the line between no-upload right and any
upload right, even limited.

 Personally I am not sure if your distinction is the better one,
personally I prefer the one that Joerg proposed. About the naming, I'm
not sure if we really should change everything everywhere completely, I
don't see the real gain, rather the drawback that we will be faced with
endlessly outdated documentations that won't get noticed about using the
old terms.

 For completeness, the [GR-DM] URL is
<http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003> for those who haven't figured
the "something" out yet. :)

> > 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?

 Especially, it's something that is expected already to be done by the
sponsors doing the upload with the DM-Upload-Allowed control field. It's
just wording it out more explicitly, it's not adding any more burden,
it's just standardizing the workflow.

 So long!
Rhonda