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

Re: [EOT, hopefully] NM flamefest

** On Jan 15, Hamish Moffatt scribbled:
> On Sun, Jan 14, 2001 at 01:19:15PM +0100, Bas Zoetekouw wrote:
> > I don't really see the point here. What's the advantage of giving NM's
> > only the possibility to upload packages and no (at least no all of to
> > all of them) an account a an email address? Will it make the NM
> > process easier? No. Will it make it faster? No. 
> True, but it might decrease the demand for new maintainership.
> Hypothetically there may be people in the queue who are more
> interested in a cool email address than in helping Debian.
OK, how about adding a point to the NM process where the NM states "I DON'T
WANT a @debian.org e-mail address"? Would that be a sufficient exclusion
measure for those who wouldn't agree to that? For the third time I will
state - I don't want/need the @debian.org address; I would be proud if I had
it, but if it's such an important issue, I will resign from having the

> Regarding working for Debian before being a registered maintainer.
> I agree with Marcus that this does deprive the maintainer of
> rights, which is not nice. However, if we accept that new maintainer
> processing must take a non-zero amount of time, people in the queue
I will repeat my question. And what about those who passed the NM process in
a snap and now wait for months for DAM to create the account? (Yes, I mean

> could be doing some work in that time. There is no need to just
> sit and wait.
I don't do that and I'm starting to be annoyed by this argument being
repeated all over again. http://debian.vip.net.pl/{caudium,caudium-unstable}
- also rsynced to two other servers. Is that enough of evidence I _do_ work
and create something useful (at least for a few dozen of people - both
inside and outside Debian)?


Visit: http://caudium.net - the Caudium WebServer

/* A completely unrelated fortune */
 Things worth having are worth cheating for. 

Attachment: pgpTRzw1IKz8v.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: