On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 12:02:57AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:55:55PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> > > Given how rooted is the acronym DD in the Debian community, I doubt it
> > > is a good idea to change it or even to get rid of it.
> >
> > True, but the proposal splits the current DD in two types, namely DDM
> > and DNDM.
>
> No, it does not split (to be precise, it does not partition) the
> current DD class.
> rather then splitting adds a new class of people able to vote.
>
> Hence, I still don't by your argument.
I admit that that wasn't the strongest point. The main reason is the
part you didn't quote, though:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:55:55PM +0200, Bas Wijnen wrote:
> It would be very nice to have a naming where DDM (or perhaps just DM)
> would still be DD, but I couldn't think of a scheme where that was
> possible while still showing the logic of the roles. Calling every
> member a "developer" just doesn't make sense.
To be more clear, I am trying to accomplish:
1 - a naming scheme which makes sense, instead of the current scheme,
where more confusion is added with each new name.
2 - a scheme where DNDM and DDM are not normally separated, so when we
talk about "DDs", we aren't leaving an important group out.
3 - not too much confusion due to name changes.
1 and 2 have equal priority; 3 has lower priority, IMO. I agree with
you that my proposal doesn't do well on that point. The reason I accept
this, is that this confusion is not permanent; it will be gone once
people are used to the new names. The confusion of 1 on the other hand
will exist until the naming scheme is replaced.
You're saying that 3 should have a higher priority (right?). In the
short term, I can see that this avoids problems. But in the long term,
ignoring the proposal, it leaves problem 1. And with the proposal, it
makes problem 1 even bigger, and more importantly, it introduces problem
2. That is, with the naming Jörg proposed, DNDM and DDM don't have a
common name, so when talking about "all DDs", we're missing the DNDMs.
As was remarked elsewhere, this will result in them being looked upon as
second class. Since Jörg's proposal is exactly meant to show them that
we value their contributions, I think it is actually very important to
do this Right. And that means
A - that they aren't called "developers".
B - that they are full members, and that their title (DM) is used when
talking about them.
Calling every member a DD (as it is now) would need a new meaning for
DD, because as I wrote, not every member is a developer. If you have a
suggestion for a better name, I'm open for suggestions. I couldn't come
up with anything better than "member", because that's what it's really
about.
By the way, do you agree to renaming DM/DC/DME to more logical names, or
do you dislike that as well? My main problem with the naming is with
DM/DME. Do you share my concern about this?
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