Re: long term goals of debian membership
On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2000 at 01:48:24PM -0700, John Galt wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I submit that I have not gotten personal with you, so to be very blunt, if
> your comments are only going to be personal attacks, then just shut the
> hell up.
"TRANSLATION: You're just jealous." It's been personal: It started
personal in my case and you followed. No point in crying over spilt milk
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.
>
> Obviously you think I have this vision that me being a developers is this
> "cool" thing that I want to keep from everyone else. Quite the contrary.
Nice thing to say now. A little late, though: your previous words spoke
volumes on the other side of the coin. "better than average" my
foot! "holier than average" maybe.
> As someone who puts a great deal of time into the project, it has become
> very personal for me. I want to make sure the Debian project is kept up to
> standards. When Debian first started, only actual developers were bold
I tried to find out from the linux counter when I registered with them, so
far their response has been less than spectacular, so I'm hazy as to the
actual date I started using Debian. Needless to say, The closest
recollection is sometime between May 1996 and Oct 1998--the dates that I
had an account on the computer I used to download Debian (you
expected me to d/l it straight to my comp with a 2400 baud
modem?). Debian Released 1.1 in May 96, so I must've stepped in somewhere
around 1.2-2.0. Is that "at first" enough for you? For the record, I am
not, never have been, nor ever will be a Debian Developer. I will not
willingly be a part of such an elitist group.
> enough to even begin messing with it. Now, in this popular time of Linux,
> everyone wants to be a Debian developer just to wear the name tag. We need
Again wrong, see above. I AM part of everyone, and my particular
circumstances have proved exceptional to your broad brush twice. I am not
that far off the norm (two or three sigmas at the most...:), so your broad
brush must be at fault.
> a way to keep the superficials out, while still allowing real honest to
> god volunteers in. Allowing "everyone" to get in, and shitcan them later
The only problem is that you're keeping real honest to god volunteers out
now. It was worse less than a year ago, and you seem to want to go more
toward the former policy of "no NM" than the present "heavy-duty NM". I
say that even the setup of today is more onerous than it needs to be. To
be more precise, how are you going to attract honest to god volunteers
when you make it so hard to volunteer that only those with non
work-related motivations can get in? To those that want the
"@debian.org" name tag, they can wait until doomsday if they want it bad
enough, to those that want to "scratch an itch", chances are pretty good
that waiting will either find them scratching another itch or giving up
and finding someone that has the same itch.
> is only going to make the administration harder, and get feelings hurt
Now it's my turn to not care about whose feelings are hurt. If the only
thing holding on to a DD is inertia, why should their feelings get in the
way of booting them? Did they pay attention to the feelings of those who
were hurt by their inaction?
> (give them something, then take it back). Plus you have things where
> people have been in the project for years and shouldn't get canned for a
> few months of innactivity. So it would be hard to justify canning anyone
Okay, give them a sliding scale of warning to shape up or ship
out. Better yet, find some way to reward that doesn't involve taking up
an active billet. Make a Developer emeriti category and give them a nice
gold colored web page and our eternal thanks for a job well done (you
know, this mightn't be a bad idea right now...), possibly even an
@pantheon.debian.org email.
> (currently you have to break some serious rules to get this).
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> So everyone who wants to be a a developer, no matter what the reason,
> should be allowed!? I think someone on IRC said this best "NM is closed,
> just email r00td00d@debian.org with your prefered username as the subject
> and your gpg key attached and scripts will create your account".
Compare this with your scenario. "NM is closed, you have to be
uber-eleet to even think of joining, then we'll contact you". Which one
is more in line with the principles of open source? Which one is the
Cathedral, and which one is the Bazzar?
> > > 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.
>
> This is silly. Being a developer entails some form of responsibility, even
And you get this responsibility how?
> if this is a volunteer effort. Not asking people to be responsible is
Au contraire, YOU are the one who is pressing for non-responsibility. The
NM in my case is given a push and told to make something useful, the NM in
your case is carefully vetted and then assumed to be responsible, never
being required to prove it again.
> stupid. Also, if people are really that interested in working within the
> Debian ranks, then they will be able to handle some time on the low end.
Now I'm positive you don't get it. NM is so vehemently against this kind
of idea that I got toasted for it when NM was just starting out of the
box: look in the archives if you don't want to believe me. I'm really
surprised (actually, the more I think about it, the less I am :/ ) that
nobody else has latched on to this point of yours.
> Obviously when you start working at Red Cross, you aren't given the same
> responsbilities as a seasoned volunteer. You are also not given the same
> access to facilities and decision making. You have to work your way up,
> just like any organization. Like starting out in a company in the
> proverbial "mail room".
>
> > > > > 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.
>
> Again, silly to think it's so easy to just release someone. With your
I don't think it's easy, I think it's less damaging to the distribution to
release cruft than to ignore new developments (and developers).
> tactic, we allow 5000 developers, and we have to weed through logs and
> reports just to decide who to kick out this month. More work for the weary
> administrators. How bold of you to give them more of a work load.
Better they decide how productive a given person is by objective criteria
than decide on how productive a person will be using subjective
ones. There is no objective measurement of future possibility, just
probability calculations. An objective measurement can be scripted and
just monitored: a subjective measurement must have human intervention at
all levels, because it's hard to teach a computer subjectivity.
> > > 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.
>
> I really don't see how my ego is flapping. Obviously some peoples view of
> me lessens with these statements, but that doesn't mean I should hide my
> opinions, nor change them to suit "the social view" of others. If you want
> a follower of the hurd (not GNU/Hurd :), go check some where else.
No, you shouldn't hide your opinions just because they're insulting. You
should hide them because you're wrong.
>
--
Customer: "I'm running Windows '98" Tech: "Yes." Customer:
"My computer isn't working now." Tech: "Yes, you said that."
Who is John Galt? galt@inconnu.isu.edu, that's who!
Reply to: