On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 08:58:17AM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: >> We have no guidelines for what software we can package, aside from the > Yes we do. We won't package software that's too buggy for us. We haven't > packaged Project Gutenberg. My experience is that there are lots of developers who package software that's too buggy for *me*. YMMV. :) I'd like to think that this is mainly a question of experience, and that new developers become more selective in their packaging as time goes on; but I *fear* that this is not the case. > > We have no restrictions on who can join Debian, besides the fact that > > they must understand and support our committment to free software. > They also have to demonstrate technical ability, pass an ID check, prove > their technical ability, and have a 6-12-month Brady-like waiting period. > > right now. I don't think it's smart to accept just any developer, just > > as I don't think it's smart to accept just any package or any > > architecture. > > Have you even bothered to check what the NM process is? >> We have more than enough packages already, and we don't need more >> package maintainers. > I refer you to the WNPP list. I think that's enough to disprove your > argument. I don't think it does anything of the sort unless you can show an inverse correlation between the number of maintainers, and the number of orphaned packages on the wnpp list. Come to think of it, I would really like to see some real numbers on this matter one way or the other, since AFAIK all anybody has right now is a gut feeling. Tracking developers vs. orphaned packages might give us one (fairly gross) metric by which to judge whether the NM process is effective at improving Debian's overall quality, or just at giving an ego boost to more people. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
pgprE7IcI2buo.pgp
Description: PGP signature