Re: soundtracker not updated ?
Quoting Raphael Hertzog (firstname.lastname@example.org):
> Le Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 12:32:14AM +0200, Robert van der Meulen ?crivait:
> > Nope, there's a difference. An official debian developer is 'bound' to the
> > project. He/she has agreed to some guidelines, contracts, rules. A sponsoree
> Thos rules don't forbid to disappear and even if such guidelines exists,
> they are not always followed. Be sure that all my sponsoree are well aware
> of what being a Debian developer is, that hasn't prevented them from
> disappearing :-(
They don't; but there are some clear mechanisms that can be used if it is
the case. A developer can be tracked, contacted, and a developer's actions
are clearly identifyable within 'the system'. This is why there actually
_is_ something like a 'debian developer'.
> > doesn't do this at all. A sponsoree cannot be officially denied, rejected
> > from the project, larted, or even _spoken to_ for his/her deeds concerning
> > the debian project. Not for good, not for bad.
> Neither can an official developer, at least even if we can, we have never
> done it. And since a sponsoree is not part of Debian it can be easily
> replaced if needed.
We can at least make sure that a person who abuses the project, or the
project's resources, can be either denied access, removed, or be
'deactivated'. At the moment, a sponsoree just needs to find a different
sponsor. A sponsoree can only be 'managed' by a single developer, whereas a
developer can be managed by the project (same goes for a sponsoree's actions
versus a developer's actions)
> > A developer has gone trough the NM phase, has been tested and proven, and
> > went trough the trouble to become one. A sponsoree can be anyone.
> A sponsoree is someone who discussed the same things with his sponsor. But
> it's not easy to guess if the sponsoree believes hard in what he said to
> its sponsor. :/ But there's the same problem in the NM process.
True. I think there are defects in the NM process as well, but they're not
as clearly identifyable as in the sponsor/sponsoree process. The NM process
has a couple of stages, involves quite some (trusted?) developers, and seems
to do an OK job.
> > If someone wants to contribute in the form of maintaining a package; let
> > him/her join the project. Sponsorship can _at most_ be a temporary solution
> I launched the sponsorship program when it wasn't possible to join the
> project. And since then several persons congratulated me for this idea.
> I don't think it has ever done any harm to Debian.
Mind! That was a great solution at the time, and i totally agree with the
people who congratulated you on it. It has not done any harm to debian (as
far as i know). But the 'new' NM process is in place, and people can become
developers relatively easily. Is there still a need for the sponsorship
> > for people who are in the NM queue; as a permanent solution it is simply an
> > officialised hack.
> Which is useful since sponsoree can see what being a Debian maintainer
> means before deciding to go any further. And because it let him learn with
> a more trained/knowledged developer.
I agree. but it's not a permanent solution for people who want to
contribute, but don't want the extra 'burden' of going trough NM, or for
people who want to maintain a package, but have any other reason of not
becoming a developer.
encrypted mail preferred. finger email@example.com for my GnuPG/PGP key.
Grues are everywhere man! They're like starbucks!