Re: New-Maintainer

[Jonathan Hall <jonhall@futureks.net>]

Nate,

  I'm in the same boat as you--I've got a Debian package ready for
"publication," but as new mantainers are not being accepted currently, I
must find a sponsor.  I actually know a mantainer who has volunteered to
sponsor me (maybe I'm lucky).  I fell 5 hours short of getting my package
included in the 2.2 release (darn).

  However, I take a different approach to the sponsorship program than you
apparantly do.

  It is a fact that new mantainers are not being accepted currently.  As you
stated, this is constitutionally sound.

  The idea of a sponsorship program is a PRIVILEDGE.  A way of allowing
non-developers to participate.  Direct participation in the Debian project
(or any other project) is not a right, it's a priviledge.

  I was excited to learn that sponsorship was even an option.  It makes
"cheating" legitimate for those of us who cannot officially participate at
this point.

  I see no point in complaining at this point.  As I understand it, the new
mantainer freeze was done so the current mantainers could focus on getting
the software to work right--this is a good and worthwhile goal, I'd say. 
Most of the world seems to think Debian is far enough behind as it is.  I
don't see the point in trying to make things worse by insisting on being
involved when the project cannot yet use "us" efficiently.

  Having not read all the documents you site as thuroughly as you have, I am
not in a possition to comment on the validity or completness of them.  I'll
just leave my reply at this, with my opinion on the matters of sponsorship
vs. the alternative of none.  :-)

-- Jonathan


On Mon, Jan 03, 2000 at 12:55:07AM -0700, Nate Duehr wrote:
> I've been spending some time reading carefully through numerous Debian
> documents tonight and looking at the website.  I'm one of the many who
> has been waiting patiently for new-developers to start up again, and
> have voiced some displeasure from time to time on a couple of lists, but
> I understand that doing that doesn't really accomplish anything.  
> 
> This e-mail may not accomplish anything either, and I'm worried about
> the possible outcomes.  I'm soliciting FRIENDLY conversation and
> discussion of the issue in a public forum.  Flames are certainly
> allowed (free speech), but discouraged.  
> 
> ~
> 
> Points to talk about: 
> 
> 1) New-Maintainers is closed.
> 
> 2) There is a sponsorship program going on, which while on the website
> as "official" is listed nowhere in the Consitution.
> 
> 3) Sponsored developers have ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHTS according to the
> Consitution.
> 
> 4) Sponsored packages are officially maintained by the sponsor, not the
> original developer who packaged it, in the eyes of Debian.
> 
> 5) There are 18 semi-official sponsored developers listed on the webpage
> that's linked from the Debian "Development" page.  URL:
> http://www.internatif.org/bortzmeyer/debian/sponsor/
> 
> 6) There are numerous others uploading via "proxy" of the existing
> developers that I've seen here in the mailing lists.
> 
> 7) The Debian Developer's Reference makes NO comment about any of this.
> 
> ~
> 
> Let's delve into these a little further:
> 
> As far as #1 goes, that was done by the Project Leader and he's well
> within his Debian Constitutional rights to do it.
> 
> #2 is a little bit trickier, but still gives appearances of being "okay"
> on the outside.  When tied to #3 however, it has grave implications.
> 
> #3 means that those of us either being sponsored, or as in my own case,
> one who's already contacted a developer and asked to be sponsored, are
> in a precarious state.  We can contribute, but we have no voting powers,
> no say in what happens to the overall project, and (gasp!) NO FREEDOM
> within the project.  Somehow this seems like the one thing that is being
> glossed over in the setup of this pseudo-maintainers group via the
> sponsorship program.  We do NOT have the right to have a say in the
> project as a whole.  This is the NUMBER ONE reason I'm not going to
> pursue my sponsorship any further.  I don't WANT to be involved in a
> project that won't have me.  (Unlike Groucho Marx... :) )
> 
> #4 I could be wrong on this one, but I think it does mean that bug reports
> go to the wrong person, and it's not very easy for the actual package
> maintainer to work within the bounds of the BTS and other Quality
> Assurance programs.  Instead, bugs go to the uploader (again, I think)
> and the normal system isn't used.  This certainly can't lead to anything
> good as far as package quality goes.  It sure is going to be strange for
> people to get responses from the uploader who says, "Hey, let me get you
> in touch with the right person to fix this."  If this is true, it's just
> not smart to be doing these sponsorships.  Sure, people being the good
> folks that they are in Debian, this one has a chance of working itself 
> out, but why run the risk?  Sponsored maintainers also have no access
> to the various machines owned by SPI or any of the tools or abilities
> that access to those machines might allow.
> 
> #5 and #6 Folks, if you're being sponsored, you really should get on this
> webpage.  Perhaps if the TRUE size of the list of sponsored packagers
> were known, it would be more important to someone.  Whoever that may be.
> You never know, there could end up a LARGE percentage of the developers
> doing work for Debian doing it as sponsorships, and there'd be no
> evidence of it anywhere.  SIGN UP!
> 
> #7 Probably the most controversial thing I'll say here, is that I feel
> that if the Debian project is truly OPEN, then the developers reference
> should reflect the TRUE state of the project.  Chapter 2.2 should have a
> note in it about the current state of things, and the above URL
> reference for those interested in being sponsored with a disclaimer that
> the rest of Chapter 2.2 will again soon be valid.  Of course, coming
> from me that's just an opinion, but any developer could make the
> request to have it added and start the formal process.  Or the
> maintainer might read this and just decide to do it himself?
> 
> ~
> 
> These are just the thoughts I've had when thinking seriously about
> Debian and my involvement in the project.  I WHOLEHEARTEDLY agree with
> Ian's Manifesto, and have read all the appropriate documentation and
> as much of the commentary as was held in public over the last few
> months as I could.  
> 
> The analogy that comes to mind is that the Debian Castle has been built
> and now all the builders are holed up inside with everyone else standing
> at the moat with the drawbridge up.  Some brave folks put ladders up and
> scaled the walls (it wasn't easy, and at least no one inside was
> shooting at them, in fact they helped them make the ladders!) to get in
> and help continue the ongoing construction inside the Castle.  Many of
> the inhabitants of the Castle are showing signs of denial, others are
> blaming the King, and still others are smuggling people in over the wall
> as fast as they can.
> 
> As with any analogy, I'm sure it will fall apart under scrutiny.  :)
> (By the way, to continue the analogy: The King has announced the
> lowering of the drawbridge in January, if I'm not mistaken, but the
> Knights are worried that the drawbridge won't stand up to the weight of
> the people coming in!  hee hee...)
> 
> A few more points then I'll shut-up.
> 
> ~
> From Debian's Free Software Guidelines: 
> 
> "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups"
> 
> Are people who'd like to join and can't being discriminated against?  I
> don't know the answer, but I'll leave it up to you all to decide.  I
> officially have no rights in this forum other than to speak, which I do
> appreciate.
> 
> ~
> From Debian's Social Contract
> 
> "4. Our Priorities are Our Users and Free Software"
> 
> Are the needs of the Debian user base being served by the closing of
> new-maintainers?  (Yes, I think this one's already been discussed.
> Perhaps not in public?  Again, I have no answer.)
> 
> ~
> And From the Debian Linux Manifesto, perhaps Ian's words can put it best:
> 
> "Debian Linux is a brand-new kind of Linux distribution.  Rather than
> being developed by one isolated individual or group, as other
> distributions of Linux have been developed in the past, Debian is being
> developed openly in the spirit of Linux and GNU."
> 
> "The Debian design process is open to ensure that the system is of the
> highest quality and that it reflects the needs of the user community.
> By INVOLVING OTHERS [my emphasis] with a wide range of abilities and
> backgrounds, Debian is able to be developed in a modular fashion."...
> 
> "INVOLVING OTHERS [again, my emphasis] also ensures that valuable
> suggestions for improvement can be incorporated into the distribution
> during its development; thus, a distribution is created based on the
> needs and wants of the users rather than the needs and wants of the
> constructor."
> 
> ~
> 
> I'm a user of Debian.  I WANT (see above) to be involved in its
> development.  I can not OFFICIALLY be involved right now.  Doesn't that
> somehow go against the documented ideals of the Debian project?
> 
> Apologies all around to those who were quoted, and hopefully not
> misquoted.  
> 
> ~
> 
> Here's one more interesting point:
> 
> Why have Debian's developers allowed new-maintainers to be closed for 
> so long.  Many are willing to blame the leadership, but in my
> reading of the Constitution, it would appear that ANY developer with a
> good idea on how to fix new-maintainers could have proposed it at ANY
> time and if passed by a large enough margin, it would have been done.
> Of course, here in the real world, you'd need to work with the
> new-maintainers crew to keep them somewhat happy or you'd be finding a
> new crew to take up your newly proposed "fix", but that's just normal
> politics.  Welcome to dealing with people!
> 
> Somehow I have a feeling that the closed-door discussions amongst the
> leadership didn't help the situation any.  From what I've gleaned as an
> outsider, the general population of Debian developers was never
> approached or asked to participate in fixing the issue.  Maybe
> indirectly, I don't know.  The Constitution very clearly states that the
> Project Leader is NOT to push a personal agenda either, and whether or
> not that was done, I can't say.
> 
> Of course, I have no idea if and/or how any of the developers have been
> involved in discussions on debian private mailing lists, so what I
> believe to be true may be GROSSLY inaccurate or flat-out untrue.  If so,
> take it as a sign that communication with those who are waiting probably
> hasn't been what it should have.
> 
> Perhaps down the road, the developers should consider a Constitutional
> amendment that all communication between officers and delegates (which I
> assume the new-maintainers team is, since it's not directly referenced
> in the Constitution) be put in a read-only-for-official-developers
> repository so the possibility of abuse or simple miscommunication is
> not there.  Then if the leadership is miscommunicating, the general
> membership can step in and make resolutions and get them passed by 
> majority vote.  
> 
> Hard to enforce, and possibly hellish on the guys in the various
> offices, however.  Not sure that's the best idea, but someone should
> think about it.
> 
> I've done my best to not make any PERSONAL statements regarding anyone
> in this e-mail.  I'm strictly asking questions and starting what I hope
> will not degenerate into a flame-war.  They're unproductive.
> 
> My one desire from this e-mail: Make Debian as OPEN as the source code again!
> 
> p.s. If there's anything I can personally do to help, ASK!  Like any
> other volunteer, I can still say no, but I'm pretty motivated to say
> yes right now, and I'm sure there are others out there who would agree.
> 
> -- 
> Nate Duehr <nate@natetech.com>
> 
> GPG Key fingerprint = DCAF 2B9D CC9B 96FA 7A6D AAF4 2D61 77C5 7ECE C1D2
> Public Key available upon request, or at wwwkeys.pgp.net and others.



--
Ethernet (n): something used to catch the Etherbunny.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  Jonathan Hall  *  jonhall@futureks.net  *  PGP public key available
 Systems Admin, Future Internet Services; Goessel, KS * (316) 367-2487
         http://www.futureks.net  *  PGP Key ID: FE 00 FD 51
                  -=  Running Debian GNU/Linux  =-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -