Re: Developer Status
Bas Wijnen wrote:
> 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.
I am talking about the DNDCs here. DNDCs have no priviledge whatsoever besides
getting included in a list.
>> 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.
If the current Debian Maintainer process is failing for some reason, please
elaborate. If it's not, then I don't see why adding more checks is useful.
>> 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.
Hmm, I see the point. However, remember that the current Debian Maintainer thing
is intended for maintainership of few packages. As the original Debian
Maintainer process was intended (someone gets a package sponsored, works with
the sponsor for a few releases, and then the sponsor is confident the sponsoree
won't screw up so flags the DM-Upload-Allowed: yes), I do think "1 invitation,
you're in" should work. If it is not working this way, then perhaps it doesn't.
But I haven't heard anyone say that yet.
>> > - 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
Partially, depending on the definition of long-term. I do agree that voting and
becoming DPL or other delegation should require long-term interest. But I think
that for general upload rights the bar is way lower. As I said in another
message, 1 year is enough to do a lot of work, but spending half of that year
waiting is not useful, I think.
>> > - 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?
I don't want to rush people into privileged positions. I object arbitrary
limits, specially when I think the limit will miss many important cases.
>> 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.
That's why I said "you might not intend that". If they are effectively
almost-DDM, there is a large room for looking down.
> 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.
I agree with this.