On 10621 March 1977, Marc Brockschmidt wrote: > 1.1.3 Front Desk > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > That one's easy. Brian has not much time, I'm bored by reading the same > answers over and over and over again. Also, the amount of time I'm able > to invest fluctuates, as my studies sometimes take up quite a lot of > time (usually right before exams...) Well. Remove Brian, add another? :) Also FrontDesk could skip reading the reports. Or only read them from new AMs, to give them tips when they made mistakes. (And of course be there if they have questions, lala). > 1.2.3 Drop Front Desk/merge with DAM > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > The opinion that the FD check of reports is not needed has been > presented more than once. Assuming this would be a real possibility, it > would leave the problems not related to the DAM/FD unfixed. As if it is only reading reports what Frontdesk is doing. No, dropping Frontdesk would be bad. FD is doing a lot of work syncing the AMs with the NMs, that should not be kicked to others. People saying FD could be dropped just dont know the process. > 1.2.6 Web-based checks > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > It was proposed to change the NM process to be based on simple HTML > pages with some forms, checking for some things. This makes it quite > easy to "cheat". Also, our current checks include a lot of free writing, > discussing matters of philosophy, which won't be possible in a fully > automatic system. The current questions also allow to educate NMs in > areas they don't know much about. One example brought up was "the Cisco online tests". I can only say: *BRRRRR*, no, we dont want that. > 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > This one is a long-time goal. There's a discussion about this at the > moment anyway, but the problem is known for a long time. By splitting > these three things apart, we gain a lot of flexibility and could solve > things like sponsoring on the way. This is mainly based on a proposal > Anthony Towns made to me in private. Lets keep the seperated upload idea out of the following text from me. That (hopefully) gets his own discussion after ajs proposal. For the rest - splitting the rights is a problematic task. Where do you define who gets what rights? Right now it is: Do actual work (mostly packaging, some few doc-people) for Debian, do the whole NM, be a full-featured DD. If you want to change that where to draw the line? Who gets that wanted @debian.org? Who can vote? Etc. Like - does the one who wants to maintain one random package only gets voting rights? What about the boss of that ISP, who hosts (say) 2 machines for debian.org, which make traffic - which produces cost. Does he (or one of his employees get voting rights? Or the artist who produces a picture here and there for some events where Debian gets a free booth, so we have something to show to the world. Or the people giving us the free booth. Etc. pp, you probably get what I mean. What contribution counts more/enough? -- bye Joerg [...]that almost anything related to "intellectual property" is idiotic by it's nature, [...]
Attachment:
pgpOpFruXchUI.pgp
Description: PGP signature