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

Re: soundtracker not updated ?

Le Sun, Aug 19, 2001 at 01:15:04AM +0200, Robert van der Meulen écrivait:
> 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'.

A sponsoree also has an email adress, he can be contacted, tracked, and
all their actions are clearly identified through what the sponsor does
(and the sponsor knows what he has done, that's why I'm answering here
that the package can be taken since my sponsoree has disappeared).

> 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

The sponsoree doesn't have any access to Debian resources apart through
its sponsor. And the sponsor checks the sponsoree work.

> 'deactivated'. At the moment, a sponsoree just needs to find a different
> sponsor. 

A sponsoree won't change its sponsor without a good reason. If there's a
good reason then let it change. If there isn't, I'm sure the sponsor would
probably warn the other sponsors. But anyway, changing sponsors sdoesn't
change anything since all sponsors (should) check the work of their

> 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 is alone ... it's not really managed by the project (at least
he isn't managed more than any sponsoree), just take a look of how
difficult it is to track the work of Debian developer. Ask Martin
Michlmayr (tbm) who is trying to track MIA developers.

> 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.

All developers should be "trusted", otherwise there's no sense in our NM
setup. And there's no real defect in the sponsorship system. In fact, it
works well with the new NM setup since it's most of the time a good way to
satisfy the "ability test" (can't remember its precise name). Sponsor are
always asked about their sponsoree before they get the status of official
debian developer.

> 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
> mechanism ?

Yes. Because the NM process won't teach you how to get a debian developer,
but just checks if you can be (ie have the knowledge and the required
experience) an official debian 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.

I never said that, any sponsoree should have the intent to become an
official Debian developer, otherwise it shouldn't be a maintainer, but
just a contributor.

Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://strasbourg.linuxfr.org/~raphael/
Le bouche à oreille du Net : http://www.beetell.com
Naviguer sans se fatiguer à chercher : http://www.deenoo.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com

Reply to: