Re: RFC: Changing the NM system
On 00-12-16 Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Dec 2000, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > package this is sometimes enough to pass the "Tasks & Skills" test (e.g.
> > Well, do yo have some other examples too? I think one example is nice,
> > but some others would be good to have.
Well, this is again one developer, which has noticed after some mail
exchanges with him, that his procedure to do the task&skill check wasn't
good and will change it from now on.
Alright, this is an other good example.
> Please note: I don't say that these applicants shouldn't become Debian
> developers at all. I do only doubt they are already skilled enough.
Agreed. Both maintainers would have needed a bit more time to get used
to our debian philosphy and build-system.
> > > - A developer can make an upload for every single package in Debian.
> > > We trust him that he doesn't do any harm.
> > Do you want a system where you can only upload packages where you are
> > the Maintainer? This would make it hard to do bugfixes and NMUs, if the
> > maintainer went MIA.
> No, I don't intend to change this. My point is: Someone who has a Debian
> account can do much harm (intentional or accidential). That's a reason why
Right, but there's no protection against human errors, which can also
happen to a extremly high qualified person with for example an iq of
200. You can only protect debian against people who want to harm it.
> I think we should have a severe look at the work of an applicant before he
> gets an account.
Well, depends on how we define severe.
> > this decision. But then you need to make sure that the sponsors have a
> > good knowledge about the debian build system and are qualified to make a
> > judgement about a package.
> That's one reason why I suggest the following:
> > > suggests to the NM team that he should become a Debian account. The NM
> > > team (perhaps the current NM-Committee plus other interested Debian
> > > developers) then looks critical at the work of the applicant, makes a
> > > "Philosophy and Procedures" check,... and discusses and decides whether
> > > the applicant will be a valuable gain for the project.
Well, this would still mean that you either need a list of predfined
criteria, which will be a bad thing and also create new problems. Or you
need to depend on the NM-comittee and believe that they make the right
decisions. I think this is a part of the current NM process that needs
no change as it's working fine. Only a bit more sponsorship and a bit
more careful task&skill test would be helpful.
Ein "Nein" ausgesprochen mit der tiefsten Überzeugung ist besser
und größer als ein "Ja" um zu gefallen oder noch schlimmer, um
Schwierigkeiten zu umgehen.
-- Mahatma Gandhi