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

Re: NM non-process

>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

FYI, I'm one of the people who hasn't applied to become a maintainer because of the New Maintainer "process". I intended to do more QA work, but a lot of it is difficult or pointless if one isn't a DD (what fun it is to submit trivial one-line packaging patches which will be ignored, with no recourse to NMUs; and trying to clean up the disorganized web pages isn't a reasonable task without access), and for some of the rest one tends to get ignored if one isn't a DD. ("He's not a DD -- he can't ask for a package to be removed.") So I considered becoming a DD. But I looked at the current state of the NM process, and decided it wasn't worth it to go through the process in order to wait for months without response, especially since the system seems set up to encourage only package maintainers to apply.

Reply to: