Re: [Fwd: [RFC] Making NM 'by recommendation']
>>"Jon" == Jon Eisenstein <jeisen@mindspring.com> writes:
Jon> Another possibility that I imagine has been suggested before is
Jon> that of a tiered developer system. We already have an unoffical
Jon> 3-tiered system, maybe with more levels: Senior Developer,
Jon> Developer, Non-Developer. I
We do? And who are the senior developers, then? In some
respects, all developers are equal -- they ahve the same rights to
vote, the same rights to their package as anyone else.
The only difference there is comes is in the opinion of the
fellow developers -- when it comes to an issue (like this one) where
people have not made up their minds, then the perception of
competence of a developer counts -- whether it is handling a large
and complex package well, or making rational posts that people agree
with.
It has little to do with seniority. Perception of competence,
reasonableness, ability t o work as a team member, ability to
convince one's peers -- that is the major difference, as far as
differences go, between developers (except, of course the DPL -- and
again, the DPL is selected partially based on the perception as a
developer, so we come full circle).
Jon> worked for a long time on a MUX that, though it had
Jon> significantly fewer staff, did work well with such a system
Jon> (Senior Developer, Full Developer, Junior Developer,
Jon> Trainee). All members of these groups had full privileges (and
Jon> I'm not suggesting that this part be copied fully), but had to
Jon> report to a higher level regularly. After proving that they had
Jon> certain skills, the person could be promoted by suggestion of
Jon> their superior (of one level above).
I am not so sure I want this tiered developer hierarchy. We do
not ahve core developers. we don't have developers who are more equal
than others. And, for that reason, I think that the NM process needs
to be discerning -- since any such inequality, I think, would be more
deleterious to Debian's health than a scarcity of developers.
Jon> Now, who would want to have to check up on these people
Jon> regularly and put in all this extra work, you may
Jon> ask. Personally, I wouldn't mind doing this. It's the person
Jon> who's trying to become a higher status that has the
Jon> responsibility of showing what they've done for Debian. If they
Jon> haven't reported in a long time, they shouldn't be checked up on
Jon> with more than a "I haven't heard from you in a while; you still
Jon> working on things for Debian?" And the reports that are sent
Jon> wouldn't even be that long. Just a quick note to review (shorter
Jon> than most messages on this list) showing what they've been up
Jon> to.
The bureaucratic and boring work of a supervisor is not the
only drawback of this scheme. You are ignoring the psychological
aspects.Having a hierarchy fosters political maneuvering, jostling
for post ion to be alpha developer. Though this works in a corporate
setting, I doubt this shall work in a volunteer organization. The
motivation for developers, different though they are, generally
contain the requirement that working for Debian, at some level, be
fun. You bring in the core developers, and the novices, the
aristocracy, and the hoi polloi, it is going to be less fun for the
serfs. (This was a factor in me joining Debian as a volunteer rather
than going to the more mature *BSD's).
Apart from being a Linux distribution, Debian is also a
delicate balanced social organism. Such tinkering at the levels you
advice are likely to destroy what we have.
manoj
--
"What I've done, of course, is total garbage." Willard, Pure Math
430a
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
Reply to: