[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: KDE2 - nice demolition job ...

On Mon, 11 Sep 2000, erik wrote:

>  Thank you for a cool response - I was really hoping that would eventually
> happen. I realize I stirred up a hornets nest; I did it intentionally
> because otherwise nobody seems to notice and I think that at least some of
> what I originally wrote (goading aside) is important. You happened to pick
> out probably the most practically important one with the issue of the
> protocols for accepting new voluteers. There are some other points in
> there that are more abstract political points that don't have simple
> answers - but they are the sort of thing that really won't change at all
> if they remain hidden; perceptions are not always apparent to the
> percieved.  I have been watching people turn and be turned away for quite
> awhile now and I really thought it was worth a little trouble to point it
> out. I _like_ the debian project - why else put myself up for attack to
> point out an embarressing fact? Really much easier to just go to bed ... 

Good point :-)  I hope NM can be improved as well.  I've got someone that
I know will help the Alpha port that's still in process after several
months now, but it's like molasses flowing uphill in winter to get him
finally in the project.

>   < very valid points (alpha etc.) excerpted> 


> Personally, I would like to make one proposal - I hope other
> people will have others but an obvious practical problem is the
> process of accepting volunteers; its clearly a bottleneck:
> 	a.  Assign more people to process applications - kind of
> self-explanatory.

Not to stir anything up, here, but, to the NM team, what exactly is "the
process" for dealing with NM applications?  I've tried to stay away from
politics mostly, but I've always been curious about this.  I know it
involves a phone call, getting ID proof, and getting their key signed, but
other than that, I'm clueless.  To help streamline it, is it something
that (technically) any of us can do if we know the person or are closer
geographically to them than the normal members of NM?

> 	b.  Establish at least two teirs of contribution - people who are
> interested in helping with less technical aspects need not be subjected to
> the same screening process as package maintainers. So if, for example
> somebody says "hey, could I help with paperwork or the website or
> something ?" they can be easily accepted to work on something. Voluteering
> should not be a full time job.  

We get offers, but I kinda agree with the rest on this
issue.  Documentation, IMO, is just as important as the software
itself.  I know we don't always practice that principle, but we
should.  To maintain docs on par with the quality of the software
releases, I'd personally feel more comfortable knowing that anyone that's
taking care of docs has the same knowledge/credentials/whatever that the
package maintainers do.

>  	c.  (optimally) Rewrite the pages that explain how to apply and 
> give a clearer and more complete description of tasks available and what
> level of expertise each requires.  

I'd like to see this as well, but lack the time to volunteer to improve
it.  I've got enough tasks just keeping Alpha going, porting HURD to
Alpha, seeking a job (yes, I'm unemployed), keeping my wife from throwing
my computers off of the balcony, and keeping up with my Quake clan duties
:-P  I also think that whatever it is that NM does while processing an
application should be documented (not per person, just in general...I
think applicants would like to know what the steps are that you're going
through while they wait).

> 	d. (optimally) simplify the protocols for applying.

Hmmm...expand on this, please...I'm not clear on what "protocols for
applying" means.

>  Maybe we can start a constructive discussion now.

Hope so :-)

>  hmmm, er, shit, well i hope this doesn't look like a pr scam now ... but,
> anyway you can grab a .deb from  unilinux.sourceforge.net; just go in the
> anonymous ftp, there is a package called ddoc-0.4.2_all_.deb (i think)...
> newer than the release ... its in development and right now it thinks it
> depends on deb-make _and_ debhelper ... mumble, mumble ... better go to
> bed now ...

Hahahaha...I ftp'ed the debs, but was wondering if there's a source
package around.  I usually like to prod at stuff without installing it (I
know, I've already extracted the debs elsewhere on my disk, but it's nicer
to have everything in one spot).  I'll take a look at everything more this
weekend.  Looks interesting, though.


To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: