Re: long term goals of debian membership
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 02:27:19AM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> >
> > > > Debian is NOT making the most out the open source/free software
> > > > developers fan base by a long way.
> > >
> > > I get so sick of hearing this argument/troll. Making it easier for joe
> > > blow to become a developer, when he might only submit one package, with
> > > his "leet" script he developed in highschool for organizing mp3's, is not
> > > going to make Debian better.
> >
> > How many packages did you have when you became a DD?
>
> None. I'll admit, looking back, I should have been more active before
> being allowed to become a maintainer. Honestly I was so big headed at the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I submit you really could've done witout the qualifier, unless "the
time" includes up to now.
> time that I actually nominated my self for DPL after only being in the
> project for 2 whole months. I was innexperienced, and unready for the
> work.
>
> > > What will make Debian better is to have full-fledged developers who are
> > > better than average.
> >
> > TRANSLATION: Collins got his sekrit decoder ring, now he wants to make it
> > harder for others to do the same.
>
> TRANSLATION: You're just jealous.
Why would I be jealous? I can see nothing that you have that I want. I
just think that now that you got yours, you want to sell it dearly to
everyone else. You admitted that you originally had no packages, now you
wish to hold others up to a higher criterion. Hypocrite.
> > > Those people who just want to do a few things in passing ("I started using
> > > Debian and I want to help"), do not need an @debian.org email, nor an
> >
> > Nobody really needs an @debian.org email. It's just there so that there
> > is a guaranteed email for a DD. It could be @hotmail.com for all it
> > matters...
>
> If the person doesn't need an @debian.org address, and they don't need
> access to Debian systems, then they don't need to be a developer. If all
Since I stated that nobody really needs an @debian.org address, and I
think that nobody NEEDS to be a DD, I'll go with this. It's just that
when somebody wants to be a DD, I don't think that anybody should stand in
the way.
> they want to do is send patches, file bugs, or just maintaine one package
> of a program they author, then they don't really need to be a Debian
> developer.
>
> > > account on our systems just to file bugs, provide patches, test and write
> > > docs. Neither do really good coders who can only put in an few hours of
> > > work every few months (e.g. Linus would not make a good Debian developer
> > > because he cannot put in a decent amount of time just for Debian). Don't
> > > get me wrong, I'm not trying to say developers need to work Debian as a
> >
> > Somehow, I doubt I could get you wrong. You say you deserve more status
> > than Linus Torvalds for your contribtion to Debian. Who's next on your
> > list, RMS?
>
> I'm saying that people who put due time into Debian, deserve to be Debian
> Developers. Those who cannot devote enough time, do not need to be. Sounds
> like you just want to ramble on, let's get this overwith...next troll...
You still don't get it, do you? There is no deserve, there is only do or
do not. I agree, if they don't do, shitcan them: but then you'd best have
a replacement ready to go. The thing you don't get is no matter how tough
you make the screening, circumstances change. People get new jobs that
require them to sacrifice volunteer work for paid work, people lose
interest, any number of things. ATM, they post a quick intent to orphan
and packages stay orphaned for three years in some cases because there's
nobody to adopt them. I'd hope you're on -qa, because every additional
barrier to entry makes -qa's job that much bigger.
> > > full-time job, but doing something atleast once a week is a must to stay
> > > on top of policy and distribution specific things. Being a developer means
> > > you need to stay "in the mix".
> >
> > So make it easy to become a DD and have a sunset criterion. Fail to
> > notice a couple of approximately weekly messages on -devel, you get a
> > warning, then dumped. Your objection is to those who become DDs and fail
> > to discharge their duties: so make it easy to become a DD, impossible to
> > become indispensable, and hard to stay a DD.
>
> Eh? Do you realize how silly this sounds? Easy enough, setup procmail
> filter to grab those weekly messages and script a reply. Actually, Jason
Nice miss. I make my blurb about where the issue lies: not with becoming
a DD, but staying a DD, and all you have to say is how my off-the-cuff
implementation is flawed. Of course it's flawed, it's a first draft. I
still maintain that every complaint you have could be solved by making it
pathetically easy to become a DD and very hard to stay one without recent
contribution.
> Gunthorpe's echelon project already handles this. That doesn't mean we
> don't need to be more rigorous in our criteria to become a developer. It
> just means he can track developers for activity (and track them naturally,
> not with some crazy ping message :).
>
> > > Those people who say "I can't do that. I shouldn't have to read
> > > debian-devel just to be a developer", well I'm sorry, but I feel that our
> > > developers do need to keep in touch to do their volunteer work properly,
> > > else you are cheating Debian, it's users and your fellow developers.
> > > Developers that just "get by" are probably taking a position that could be
> > > better served by people who can put in the effort and time (you folks that
> > > can't aren't bad, just that Debian is getting too big not to have
> > > developers that can, and keep too many developers who can't).
> >
> > Big of you to let them off so easy. Could you be any more condescending
> > to your peers?
>
> Truth comes in many forms. Just because it offends someone, does not make
> it incorrect and does not mean that it shouldn't be said.
No, but because it was designed to flap your ego and offend others, the
truth of it must be suspect. Truth often comes at a cost to oneself,
not others.
>
--
Galt's sci-fi paradox: Stormtroopers versus Redshirts to the death.
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: