Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
On 18/03/13 at 00:20 +0300, Moray Allan wrote:
> I am not happy that:
>
> - People have gone for DM status because it's easier to get, but
> then not gone on to become project members, in many more cases than
> because they actively don't want to have full rights.
Or because the perceived difficulty of going through NM was too high.
We need to advertise more that the NM process, for existing
contributors, has become a lot less time-consuming.
> - People have been told not to become project members but to be
> happy with DM status, if they don't strictly need the full technical
> rights that currently come with being a member.
>
> Nor am I happy that, though it's comparatively less of a worry to me
> compared to those two:
>
> - People are regularly told that they should get DM status before
> applying for NM.
Well, I think that it's reasonable to expect from people involved in
packaging that they are already DM when they start the NM process. But
as Gergerly said in
https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2013/03/msg00192.html, it should be
a recommended but optional step, and the 6-month delay should only be
mentioned as an example of what is generally expected, not as a
requirement.
Also, the wiki has pages for
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper
but also for
http://wiki.debian.org/DebianProjectMember
that says: "Debian Developers are Debian Project Member with uploading
rights"
During the discussion on DDs without upload rights[1], an important
point was that such DDs should not be second-class project members, and
thus should not have a separate name[2] (it was in the original
proposal, but an amendment changing that was accepted). This wiki page
reintroduces that.
[1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2010/vote_002
[2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2010/09/msg00054.html
DAM / NM FD, is that simply a bug in the wiki pages, or something where
you feel that discussion should be reopened?
Lucas
Reply to: