Re: RFC: Changing the NM system
I left the cc to debian-project list intentionally.
Maybe I should set Reply-To to that.
In <[🔎] 20001217225746.A1225@ulysses.dhis.net>, on Sun, 17 Dec 2000 22:57:46 +0100,
Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 09:27:19AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 17, 2000 at 09:33:35AM +0100, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > >
> > > Here are the questions I thought about. Please take into account
> > > that this is just a repost of a mail from Jun 12, 1999 and things
> > > may have changed (i.e. debconf isn't mentioned). There is also
> > > one bug included, feel free to find it :)
> > That way we wont find any "Debian New Maintainer Cheat Sheets" or "Debian
> > Cliff Notes" floating around, so long as we keep the questions many, and
> > random.
> And every developer has to answer such a randomly gnerated questionary four
> times a year, so they prove that they are still interested in Debian and
> their knowledge about it is up to date with recent policy and other
> developments. No exception.
I think if we can create such questions and the correct answers, then
it will be benefit for us. There seems to be always changes in the Debian,
and even with the nice "upgrading-checklist.text.gz" in the policy package,
it takes some work to be updated.
If we definitely need something from our members, then they should be
published in some kind of the documents. And, if the "real clitical
knowledge" can be provided as a small single source, then it will work
for us. I know there are already several good documents for us (such as
developer-reference, packaging-manual, debian-policy, and so on), but
their volume continues to grow, and it is not so easy to keep up with
the current in every details (especially for those who are not native
I am not afraid for "Cheat Sheets" or "Cliff Notes". If they work for
better understanding of the Debian's procedures, it won't do harm.
Maybe we should provide the "official answer" with the questions,
and forbid to copy/paste it to answer the question. Maybe thinking
to create the derivative answers, will work to remember the official
What we wish to have, is not filtering out people, but keeping our
clitical knowledges to be widely and correctly known, isn't it ?
> Seriously, you are feeding the fire. If you raise the barrier, you make
> membership artificially more valueable, increasing the risk that someone
> just applies to become a now difficult to get debian.org email address. Your
> fear that people might create cheat sheets to circumvent the test
> demonstrates this inflation.
> OTOH, you risk to loose the contribution of people who think such a funny
> quiz is better left to monday evening TV. I certainly wouldn't bother to
> spend my time with them.
If that "quiz" is not the "exam to pass" at all, but a kind of "quick
reference to the required knowledges in the Debian", how do you feel ?
> In my eyes, appropriate ways to address some of the concerns are:
> 1. Make it easier for people to help, not harder. This does not necessarily
> mean to make it easier to become a developer, it could suffice to make it
> easier for non-developers to contribute by removing technical barriers.
> This also includes making it possible for people with little time and/or
> knowledge to participate.
Maybe the well-created "quiz" will work to lower the barriers, I hope.
Taketoshi Sano: <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>,<firstname.lastname@example.org>