On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 12:41 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote: > ==== Debian Maintainers Proposal ==== I welcome the idea of enabling people to work on Debian, but it seems to me that this proposal (even with the latest changes) mixes some concepts, that it creates more work, and duplicates some work done by at least keyring-maint, DAM and Front Desk. Also, I'm thinking that in practise, the proposal touches some things that are defined in the constitution. While it doesn't come out as directly altering the constitution due to its practical language and different approach, it does change the contributor classes, whose definition, I believe, belongs in the constitution where DD's and their powers are defined. Sponsoring is one thing, because then the DD is always a supervising middle-man, but would a DM be a "member" of Debian or not? The constitution is based on the assumption of a single class of members plus a few posts seated by members. Perhaps the most proper way to make changes to the contributor classes would be to first amend the constitution, creating a new class, and only then issue a GR outlining how the practicalities will be handled (if needed). There is also an alternative to just creating a new class that is more general and, in my opinion, has other benefits: Why not change NM to be a procedure where the applicant can apply for, and receive, one ability at a time -- and alter the constitution to allow such a pick-and-choose approach to DD powers instead of all or nothing? So to receive the equivalent of DM the applicant could, for instance, tick a few boxes on the (NM) application form, indicating acknowledgement of the SC, DFSG and DMUP and include a GPG key (signed by at least one DD). The advocate would then submit their advocation, which would be automatically handled. After that, the applicant could apply for the ability to upload already-sponsored packages, and leave it at that. The key would be added to the keyring (a separate keyring if needed for technical reasons). If the applicant wanted, they could apply for other things (at the same time or later), such as a login to Debian machines, unrestricted upload ability, GR/voting ability, etc. Those sub-applications would trigger different actions such as a full P&P or T&S, or whatever is defined as a prerequisite for the ability in question. The notion of "member" would disappear. This would ensure that no unnecessary work is done to give abilities that the applicant doesn't need. At the same time, it means that the applicant would receive the needed abilities as soon as possible, without having to wait to get everything at once. I know a lot of people are excited about this DM proposal, and I would probably rank it over Further Discussion myself, since I think it has practical value and it's nice to see that there are people willing to work on an implementation. I also know that this proposal is supposed to be independent of NM, and I understand that the proposal may be all that can practically happen right now. But perhaps it would still be preferable for some to have another alternative on the ballot along the lines of what I've described above. Perhaps the people eager to implement DM would consider implementing this instead? Does anyone agree? If there is some agreement, perhaps we could draft an amendment? Cheers, -- Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part