Re: New-maintainer - STOP THAT SHIT
> [ I dropped -mentors from the distribution. ]
> Stop CCing me on list postings.
> On 20010114T234721+1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > What about those with sid (me) who want access to potato and woody machines
> > to test with weird breakages? (me)
> What's wrong with a chroot setup?
On a total of 2 gigs? Not bloody likely. You buy me a new hard drive and
I'll consider it. Right now, I have about NEGATIVE $150. Make that NEGATIVE
$650 if you consider parents. So, right now, chrooting woody isn't my
> Besides, I'm not here to enumerate all the cases where one should be
> entitled to access to Debian machines. If it is important to your Debian
> work, I see no problem with giving you access.
> > Why in hell are you people so immediately suspicious of NMs?
> I'm not.
Then why the paragraph below?
> But you must realize that new members get the constitutional rights,
> including the right to vote. We must make sure that we are not
> immediately suspectible to a flood-of-hostile-members attack, where a
> force wanting to divert or destroy Debian, if there are any, has a large
> number of their agents infiltrate Debian and use their constitutional
> powers as members to unmake Debian.
The aliens are coming to get us!!
> > Here's a solution. Let's put in place every single tightarse, fascist
> > regulation you people have proposed. Then, let's dump you out of Debian, and
> > put you in the NM queue, under a different name, with no-one knowing who you
> > are.
> Let's see.
> In my time, initial contact consisted of mailing the NM delegates. I did that.
Still the same.
> For step 2, identification, there were two possibilities: you could
> either have a signature of a developer in your PGP key (there were no
> GPG keys back then), or you could send the delegates a scanned image of
> your official identification, signed by your PGP key. Since the nearest
> developers to me were several hundred kilometers away, I chose the
> latter way. I'm under the impression that that option is still available.
Still the same.
> For step 3, the requirements were less formal. The philosophy was checked
> in a brief phone call from one of the delegates, in my case James Troup.
> I'm confident that I would have passed even the current checks, given that
> I was a vocal proponent of Debian philosophy back then, and, AFAICR, I
> had participated in evaluating licenses in the Debian lists and elsewhere.
> The procedures I knew even before I was developer.
2 emails (both quite long) checking philosophy & procedures.
> For step 4, there were no formal checks. But at the time of my
> acceptance as developer, I had maintained a medium-complexity source
> package (malaga) for several months outside of Debian (there was no
> sponsorship program back then). I had packaged malaga from scratch
> without using any helper tools, so I consider myself to have had good
> understanding of the packaging process.
Basically, you have to package 2 things in an apt-able archive. And do them
> Step 5 consists of verifying that the previous four steps were completed
> and of admitting the applicant to the ranks of developers.
Indeed; this is where I am stuck.
> I applied on or near 1998-09-21 (I don't find my original mail from
> my archives). My key was added to the keyring on 1999-01-29.
> I am confident that I would have passed the current requirements
> had they been in force when I applied.
> > Then, and ONLY THEN, are you entitled to speak about NMs. Become one first.
> > Then bitch.
> Sorry, it does not work that way. The current members of any association
> decide on how new members are taken in, if any. The association has no
> obligation to accept new members, and nonmembers have no vote.
I know real world != right. But what I am saying is that they're wanting to
make tighter something which is not only already (albeit tolerably) tight,
but they've never experienced. Quote from a pre-NM developer: "'I've got
something I want to package.' 'Here's your password.'"
I'd like to see Ben Collins, Martin/Joey Schulze, etc, be run through the NM
process, with a different name, etc, so no-one knows them or gives them
> Remember, Debian developership is a privilege, not a right.
*sigh* I'd respond to this if I didn't have to get ready to go to my mate's