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

Re: reportbug: support for mentors.debian.org pseudo package


On Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:23:35 +0200 Arno Töll wrote:
> I appreciate your efforts and I like the idea of reportbug integration.
> I won't comment about the patch itself, I am not maintaining the
> reportbug package, so I can't judge.

Thanks for your kind words.

> However please note, mentors.debian.NET is not an official Debian
> project. The ".net" indicates a subtle difference. While some people,
> including Don, agreed in eventually having a debian-mentors pseudo
> package that would be associated with the debian-mentors mailing list,
> not with mentors.debian.net (i.e. Debexpo, the sofware running there).

I am certainly aware of the difference.  I was working with the
perspective that mentors would need become an official (.org) service
first. In my opinion, that should have happened a long time ago.

> Hence I don't think any tight mentors.d.n integration of reportbug would
> be appropriate for the time being. 

Then let's get mentors officialized to tear down this barrier!

As an aside that's apropos to this topic, I wonder if the mentors
terminology was the best choice. I feel like that term significantly
favors the mentor side of the equation, and may explain part of why the
service tends to make mentees feel unempowered; like they're very much
at the whim of others completely out of their control who are more

In my opinion a term like "contributors" would be much more
empowering.  It would better convey the fact that this is as a place
for new contributors to work together, learn, evolve, and grow within
the project. 

So, anyway, in the process of converting mentors to an official
service, I wonder if we could debate the merit of using a better / more
inviting terminology. I think this kind of transition would be the only
chance to make this kind of change (I understand this idea is very much
in dangerous bike shedding / yak shaving territory, but I think
words/terminology have a significant impact, and we should do our best
to get them right).

> Also I am not particularly convinced
> on the way you do it (content scraping). If you want, I will gratefully
> merge a SOAP interface into Debexpo you could query though.

I agree, I chose this approach since it's possible to implement right
now; although it's certainly fragile (certain changes to the mentors
pages will break the scraping algorithms).  A soap based interface
would be wonderful!

Thanks again for all the work you've been putting into debexpo.

Best wishes,

Reply to: