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

Re: NM frustrations...


On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 05:03:58PM +0000, Dale Scheetz wrote:
> Debian is very divided on the membership issues. On the one hand, we want
> to accomodate everyone who wants to help produce an exceptional distro,
> while on the other hand we want to exclude the dolts and troublemakers
> thus improving the climate of the group.

However, there was nothing close to a proof that such applicants even exist.
>From my quite remote point of view, it looks like a completely arbitrary
angst. It seems like people are trying to fix something that isn't broken.

How can someone step through the current new maintainer procedure, and not
being determined to help the project? What makes someone think that if it
does happen, the existing procedures in the constitution are not enough to
cope with it?
> These are mutually contradictory ideas when put in the context of the
> "Open Development Model" that Debian has always worked under, yet almost
> every member is well aware of the frictions in the group, the disatisfied
> applicants, the problems with release management, etc...
> And worse yet, almost everyone has their own solution to the problem ;-)

Well, I think what you did with new maintainer was integrative, because it
involved a large group of people, and something workable resulted. Only
later I realized that there still was only James (and prior Joey) doing the
final step. Ultimatively, it has nothing to do with James personally: One
single person is a single point of failure. It's okay to have some delays
sometimes, but from what I gather it's just too much work for one person.

> What I propose to do is to work out a procedure with James by which he can
> put applicants on hold who need more detail in their application report.
> When the missing components have been supplied, the DAM can remove the
> hold and finish the processing.
> While this may not make any of the stalled applications move any faster,
> it will at least give clear indication to the applicant as to the nature
> of the stall.

More transparency is always good.


`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann              GNU    http://www.gnu.org    marcus@gnu.org

Reply to: