Re: Modified http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper to mention non-packagers (Re: [CTTE #614907] Resolution of node/nodejs conflict)
On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 01:55:06PM +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:
> Jon Dowland writes ("Re: Modified http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper to mention non-packagers (Re: [CTTE #614907] Resolution of node/nodejs conflict)"):
> > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 12:15:15AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > We are in the process of discussing a variety of constitutional amendments
> > > to be raised by the tech-ctte that will hopefully end up creating a sort
> > > of bundle of constitutional fixes to vote on. Perhaps it would be good to
> > > include in that a terminology standardization on member for the places in
> > > the constitution that we refer to voting project members rather than
> > > specifically people who upload software.
> >
> > Yes please!
>
> I am not in favour of this change. The point about a Debian Developer
> is that the basis of their claim to the rights and responsibilities
> enumerated in the constitution, is that they help develop Debian.
>
> I don't think the word "Developer" implies that one can't develop
> Debian in other ways than by directly editing software.
The problem to solve is not that "Developer" implies a *limitation* of
responsibity for Developers; it's that non-packaging contributions are
not considered to carry the same value or esteem as traditional packaging.
I agree that 'developer' is a fine word to describe a valued contributor
to the project and does not — on its own — suggest packaging software,
but sadly the historical context does.
I'm not overly interested in the word developer being eradicated, but at
the very least having some consistency in Debian's documents would be
very welcome. ('New Maintainer' → route to 'Developer' vs. 'Debian
Maintainer' is another area of confusion). Perhaps an entirely new set
of nouns should be chosen, free of historical baggage?
Reply to: