Re: RFC: Changing the NM system
I don't want to see the closed gate again.
In <[🔎] Pine.NEB.email@example.com>,
on Sat, 16 Dec 2000 19:29:30 +0100 (CET), on RFC: Changing the NM system,
Adrian Bunk <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> I propose to stop the current NM process and to reorganize it.
I object here. You don't need to stop the working process to improve it.
You can always propose your idea and discuss with it. If your improvement
has definitely merit for us, then the NM team will happily adopt it.
I'm thankful to QA team who is working to improve the quality in Debian,
but I don't think the packages new maintainers brought is serious problem
for us. If they don't have enough quality, we will be safe to remove them
after the freeze date since they don't have much importance for us.
What is important for the release is the bug in the important pacakges,
and the possibility is high that such important packages are managed by
the experienced developers, not the recently registered new maintainers.
And, do you blame the motivated developer if he try to do the important
NMU and failed with some trivial error ? I believe that he can learn
from his failure, and the well-motivated member for QA task has value
even if there is a few troubles in unstable/frozen. (Please keep remember
that most skillfull maintainer can do sometimes trivial errors, and we
can stand it).
You can always claim on the particular application case by case, and
the final decision has been always brought by the DAM. You can also
has the power in our constitution as the developer to
4.1.3. Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
So if you have specific concern at any application, you can take the
procedure specified in our constitution.
Taketoshi Sano: <email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>