Re: Re: [debian-newmaint] fresh blood gets congested: long way to become DD
It seems like the threads about the NM process surface from time to time
and various complaints
are raised. The fact that these threads keep re-appearing suggest a
solution needs to be found.
I should have addressed this response back in August, but I am doing so
now and the archives
will have the complete discussion for future reference.
In particular, Thaddeus opines:
>For the record, it took me 38 months of active Debian
>development to gain DD status, during which time I
>contributed a moderate 1000 hours or so to the Project.
>While I think that some NM applicants are far more
>talented than I and should get through faster, my AM
>Martin Pitt did not think that 38 months was too long
>for me. I agree with Martin: in my case, 38 months was
>not too long. In your case it may be too long, but to
>expect to get through in less than a year or two would
>probably not be very reasonable. (Old-time DDs like AJ
>Towns, who got through NM in a week or two, should not
>feel guilty. It was a different time and a different
>Project back then. The achievements of that time have
>made possible the needs of the present, yet one of these
>present needs is that our NM process be hard,
>frustrating and slow.)
While I commend his patience (and I thought my progress through the NM
queue was
slow ;-), I disagree with the assessment that the NM process needs to
"be hard,
frustrating and slow." We _need_ quality developers. If a hard,
frustrating and slow
process produces them, then so be it. If a faster process produces too
many MIA
one shot wonders, a flaw exists that should be corrected. The old
timers already had
a reputation and those times were different.
>So, is an advanced Debian user weak or contemptible, if
>he does not want to put up with the NM process? No. We
>honor such users. The NM process is unreasonable. Most
>reasonable people wouldn't want to put up with it. But
>isn't that the point?
Our users are one of our priorities and it is true that the contract
does not say we
will make the NM process easy. But, does it need to be unreasonable?
If most
people would not want to put up with it, would the old timers pass
through this
new system? If the process would eliminate the old timers who possess the
qualities that have made Debian great, we should evaluate our objectives. I
think transparency is vital. Many of the complaints seem to be related
to it. For
example, complaining about arbitrary rules or enforcement can be seen as a
lack of transparency. Why did one person fail when another passed? What
nuance tipped the scale? etc...
I was in the queue when Eray was kicking up all the dust. We obviously need
a system that prevents some people from causing harm to our project. How it
is implemented is what the debate is all about. Producing a process
that has
better transparency and redundancy should improve the situation. I
regret that
new applicants are bottled up longer than my process. It will be a shame if
future applicants take even longer than Thaddeus.
Fortunately, an applicant can be productive and help Debian throughout the
process. Prior experience should smooth things out. A long slow process
makes more sense when an applicant lacks the experience. If the NM process
functions as on-the-job training, we should document that fact. But the
process should be flexible enough to recognize when such training is not
required.
Richard
hecker@debian.org
(please CC if you want me to see your reply, I am not subscribed to this
list)
Reply to: