On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 22:02:58 +0100 Iain Lane <laney@ubuntu.com> wrote: > Hiya, > > On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 02:49:10PM -0500, Micah Gersten wrote: > >On 08/02/2010 02:35 PM, Paul Sladen wrote: > >> On Mon, 2 Aug 2010, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > >>> pushing more for the packages to go to Debian first and then sync > >> That one individual would be ultimately signing their name on lots > >> of packages, diluting their reputation if long-term maintenance > >> doesn't end up being forthcoming after they're marshalled the > >> initial uploads. > >> > >> Back when people like Scott and mjg59 were still DDs I found it > >> relatively easy (and therefore not overly onorous) to get uploads > >> done on a semi-predictable turn-around. > > Actually, in addition to what I've said above, we now have the > #debian-ubuntu channel on OFTC set up. I believe that one function of > this channel could be to facilitate sponsorship in Debian. There's > also the Derivatives Front Desk[1], which is part of the same > initiative. I was thinking about how a derivative could best help maintain packages upstream. Iains thread seems like a good place to start exploring the ideas, so i thought i'd put some out there. As i see it, there is roughly 4 types of package: - packages with a single maintainer (who doesn't want to group maintain it) - packages with group maintenance/single maintainer who will take on group maintenance. - packages with no maintenance. - new packages And I'll split out roughly 3 types of contributor from downstreams: - those interested in becoming part of debian, but have no particular attachment to existing packages. - those who are interested in specific packages - those who simply want to help get packages maintained upstream. The first category of packages won't benefit from any of the downstreams particularly - they will all likely provide a patch and move on. The second type of package stand to benefit most from the first two types of contributor - they are potential co-maintainers. The third type of package stands to gain the most, but realistically only from the second class of contributor - someone who wants to adopt it, perhaps followed by group maintainership by interested person+others. The last category is what started this discussion - new packages. I'd suggest the second type of contributor would be the most directly productive here, followed by the first then last. However having the first and third class of contributors could help to colab maint a package - drawing benefit from all three. I'm sure I've left a lot to be desired in this breakdown - other thoughts/comments? > One of my Big Things is contributing to Debian directly instead of > making uploads to Ubuntu. I think that MOTU functions best when it > performs a QA role, and that everything is so much smoother when work > is done as far upstream as possible. Most packages — especially ones > that turn up on REVU — will work on both distributions using exactly > the same source package. Its also one of my Big Things, but for gNewSense :) kk > [1] http://www.debian.org/News/2010/20100629 -- Karl Goetz, (Kamping_Kaiser / VK5FOSS) Debian contributor / gNewSense Maintainer http://www.kgoetz.id.au No, I won't join your social networking group
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature