Re: long term goals of debian membership
galt@inconnu.isu.edu (John Galt) wrote:
> > > 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.
Brian Mays <brian@debian.org> replied:
> > The problem is many in the screaming hordes at our gates trying to
> > get in do not take the time to adopt these packages, work on them,
> > love them, feed them, and fix them. You do not need to have the
> > label "Debian developer" to work on orphaned packages. All you need
> > to do is fix bugs. I know, it's how I got my start. IMHO, it is
> > the perfect preparation for the life of a developer.
Daniel Stone <daniel@kabuki.eyep.net> wrote:
> What if they don't want them? For instance, what's the point of
> someone whose machines are all console-only (I've been there) taking
> up a window manager? What if you never use that package? Then the
> quality goes _DOWN_.
Read what was said above. My opponents in this debate are complaining
that we need to lower the barriers to let more developers in so that
they can adopt abandoned packages. Yet you counter my arguments by
saying that these potential developers don't want to adopt these
packages. For crying out loud! Pick a position and stick with it. You
can't argue both sides.
> > When you have something significant to contribute, then we'll let
> > you in. If you don't have the patience to deal with that, then what
> > kind of developer will you make when userland starts slinging bug
> > reports your way?
>
> Now let's turn this back around straight at you using that argument I
> just said. ... What if you don't care about the app, but you adopted
> it because some tightarse changed the rules so you _had to_. L^HUser
> bug reports come flooding in. You don't give a shit; you haven't used
> the app in 4 years, and when you did (for .5 seconds) it seemed to
> work OK ... *LART LART LART*
Nobody is saying that you *have* to adopt abandoned packages. I'm
saying that we are going to take you more seriously if you do.
Really, if all you want is a way for anyone off the street to upload
their packages, Linux already has such a system. It's called RedHat's
contrib directory. I would prefer, however, for Debian to have higher
standards than that. The most reasonable way to do this is to be
careful in choosing those that we allow to contribute *directly* to our
distribution.
> > Don't forget that Debian has a reputation to uphold. Whenever one
> > of our developers answers a bug report (or more importantly, DOESN'T
> > answer a bug report), it is a direct reflection on us as a group.
> > Certainly, allowing someone who has done nothing for us and whom
> > we don't even know to represent us is not a wise idea. (We have
> > enough trouble with the problems caused by our productive members.
> > ... *grin*)
>
> Based on this, virtually no-one would ever get hired. What if people
> start picking up on -devel and taking that as the official line? It's
> just as plausible as if they started reading bug reports. If the
> media/whoever want an official line, there's press releases and
> official contacts. However, the likelihood of them reading _bug
> reports_ (of all things), is _MUCH_ lower than them reading -devel,
> where they'd see all these people who seem to be speaking for
> Debian. You see?
What are you talking about? Who is talking about an "official line"?
All I'm saying is that I want to avoid, as much as possible, situations
whereby users can complain: "That Debian package was pretty bad, bug
ridden and all. I tried to contact the maintainer and I filed a bug
report, but nobody responded."
- Brian
Reply to: