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

Re: (calm reply) Re: New-maintainer - STOP YOUR SHIT

On 14 Jan 2001 at 15:58 (+1100), Brian May wrote:
| >>>>> "Ben" == Ben Collins <bcollins@debian.org> writes:
|     Ben> People with @debian.org email addresses represent Debian,
|     Ben> even if they don't intend to be. Some one posting to
|     Ben> whatever, using that email address reflects on Debian.
| Don't all Debian developers represent Debian?

yes, as do some who are _not_ debian developers (me ;), and I think
I do it quite well. I think what Ben meant is that one having the
random@debian.org email address is much more easily recognized (and
believed) as a debian developer than one having the random@domain.com
email address.

... and now for Brent's thoughts on this whole madness ...

1) email addresses/shell accounts should be allocated cautiously, in
   consideration of public relation and security concerns.
2) uploads into an 'official' debian distro should be done only
   by those having @debian.org email/shell access.
3) the NM process is kept much as it is (noting that I do not fully
   understand the process, but I think it should be):
     a) Prospect applies.
     b) Prospect gets Sponsor (better if we were to call it Mentor)
     c) Prospect can upload their packages (1 or 1000) to the 'pending'
        section of debian.
4) a new section (for lack of better word; analogous to non-us/non-free)
   which NMs can upload their packages to, we'll call it 'pending'.
   This will allow the NMs contribution to be used by interested
   parties by adding an apt line such as;
      deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian unstable pending
        or perhaps even;
      deb http://http.us.debian.org/debian stable pending
   Please be aware that this 'pending' section should be advertised 
   as _exactly_ what it is -- a set of packages whose maintainers
   are not yet full debian developers. This section of debian should
5) After a NM has proven their dedication/reliability/skill in this
   'pending' section, they may be granted full developer status.

I do believe a system like this will meet most issues raised by 
persons on either side of this heated issue. Why not give it a shot?
Anyone got any better ideas -- that are not loaded with gunpowder?



Reply to: