Re: Re-thinking Debian membership
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Note that the whole point is to know that the person in question shall
> know his/her limits, and know who to ask when in trouble. Not everybody
> should be a top class programmer if what he/she'll ever do is packaging
> pure perl extensions. OTOH the first time suck a package will be native,
> I expect him/here to document him/herself and if unsure to go to the
> right people. That's only an example of course, there are dozens of
> examples of such people nowadays that I trust with their judgements to
> not do anything foolish, beyond what they understand.
Sounds just as great as "all packages are well maintained because they
have maintainers knowing their limits and not packaging stuff they lack
skills to support".
Proposing to have assessing candidates for membership decentralized in a
way similar to package maintenance sounds good until one considers the
disastrous effect the rapid growth of Debian had on the quality of the
average package. And that portion of junk uploads that is sponsored
actually had peer review trough a current Debian developer.[1] We are
currently way to shy of actually making people stop Maintainer:ing stuff
when they are not up to maintaining it to be optimistic about limiting
bad additions to Debian when it is open for anyone to do.
Kind regards
T.
1. To me it looked like about 2 in 3 RC bugs open in lenny two months
after freezing were in the "any maintainer or Developer should be
able to fix this in little to no time"-ballpark of difficulty.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/
Reply to: