Change of NM process/DAM approval (was: Debian needs more buildds. It has offers. They aren't being accepted.)
On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 11:21:14PM +0000, Will Newton wrote:
> I disagree. I don't think it is desirable that it be one person and they be
> "consistent". I belive that will risks a monoculture of developers. If, as
> seems to be have been suggested, the DAM has a problem with impatient people,
> then we get no impatient people in Debian, regardless of ability. Just
> because you happen to have the "personality flaw de jour" I don't believe you
> should be excluded from Debian.
>
> I would prefer:
>
> 1. A committee of maybe 3-5 people (that rotates members etc.)
> 2. A set of guidelines that include, but do not limit, why a NM may be
> rejected.
> 3. A public mailing list where all deliberations are archived (or even a
> debian-private alike list if that is too much).
> 4. If the a committee member (or DAM) has a personal problem with a NM, they
> should declare a conflict of interest and let some vice-DAM or vice committee
> member take their place in that case.
>
> It is my belief that that would be fairer than the current system.
Those changes would make it able to me to apply for NM!
Currently, it is not possible to me to join Debian as a DD because there is
my believe of a unfair NM process (in german: Gewissenskonflikt aehnlich wie
bei der Verweigerung des Kriegsdienstes mit der Waffe).
> > It does not necessarily follow that the DAM hat needs to be worn
> > together with the exact complement of hats that it is currently
> > sharing a head with, but it is esay to see sound practical reasons for
> > it to at least go together with keyring maintainer and machine
> > administrator hats. In any case, any problems attributable to hat
> I don't think such minor conveniences should ever come into the equation. This
> question of fairness and transparency is more important than it being
> slightly quicker to get the key added. If it takes an email and someone else
> to add the key, so what?
I agree.
> I think the monthly flamewar should be a hint. Even if you personally do not
> believe there is a problem with the NM process:
>
> - Do you believe the regular flamewars are a heinous waste of time and need
> to stop?
> - Do you believe it is inevitable that these flamewars will occur?
>
> I would answer Yes and No. I think we can take steps to minimize the amount of
> NM process flamage.
Indeed.
Finally someone has some good idea instead just flaming non-DDs. Thank you,
Will!
--
Ciao... //
Ingo \X/
Reply to: