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

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

On Sun, Jul 20, 2003 at 01:46:17PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> As a note of reference, particularly to NM-queue folks: this is more or
> less exactly what used to happen, so far as I can make out from
> statements by longtime DDs and archive mails.

Not in my experience.

> You got to be a DD by submitting patches to bugs, doing work that others
> considered valuble (in more than one case, AFAICT, rebuilding packages a la
> the C++ transition, with uploads done by something much resembling today's
> sponsorship), and generally just being around enough until someone poked
> the folks in charge and said "make <foo> a Developer".

I got to be a developer by telling Robert Leslie: "Hey, you didn't fix
the bug I reported in mpack.  Can I take the package and fix it?"
Then he said, "Sure", and I mailed a scan of my passport to Bruce Perens
and became a Debian Developer.

Now I'm looking for a new maintainer for mpack because I no longer
use it, btw :-)

> I suspect this is a large part of why many of the older developers don't
> see this as a problem, innately - I also suspect that they might hold a
> different opinion if they spent 8-12 months in that situation.

I'm an older developer and I see it as a BIG problem.  I'm currently
a member of a project that I wouldn't join if I came across it today.
That's inconsistent, and I'm pondering the ethics of the situation.

I'm not just talking about the wait for DAM approval, but also the
need to be a motivated contributor for a long time without being part
of the group.  For me those things are inextricably linked.  And I would
never have had the patience to go through sponsorship for things I should
be able to do by myself, and I would never have dared to take reponsibility
for a package that I can't fix myself.

Richard Braakman

Reply to: