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

Re: Proposal: The future of the Debian NM process

Christoph Berg <myon@debian.org> wrote:
> [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/04/msg00006.html
> Here's my proposal:
> +---------
> | Introduce an intermediate role "Debian Maintainer" (DM).
> | Summary: is allowed to upload packages already in the archive by himself.
> | Needs sponsoring for new packages, no vote rights. Can either proceed to
> | become DD or stay a DM.

Quoting the problems I see in [2]:
1. Quite a lot of applicants are frustrated by the NM process.
 a. unresponsive AMs
 b. waiting for AM assignment
 c. waiting for FD/DAM approval
 d. wrong impression of the amount of time needed
2. lack of free Application Managers
3. Template-driven, uniform and *boring* checks

I don't see how the proposal addresses most of those. Maybe
it reduces frustration by allowing applicants to contribute
before they finish the NM system.

However, it weakens the Quality Assurance of the sponsorship process,
which some already seem to think is too weak.  The rationale says it
works quite well, but it seems reduced in this proposal.  Why?

This proposal seems to rely on getting more AMs who act more
quickly, but I can't see why reduced importance (because DMs
can upload alone already) and potentially more material to review
will cause that.

I still think that if the template-driven boring checks are
replaced by a more mainstream evidence+quiz format that is
faster for AMs, FD and DAM to handle, the other problems resolve
themselves.  This need not lessen the checks, but should allow
some checks to be made by looking at the submitted evidence,
rather than yet more email interrogation.

> dpkg: Should we introduce a new Signed-By (Built-By?) field in the
> .changes? (As by Anthony's observation that it's hard to see who
> sponsored which upload.)

Yes. I consider that sponsors should usually be an Uploader,
but a .changes field would be useful for other situations.

> If you are at DebConf, there will be 2 related BoFs: one at Friday
> morning where we will discuss current AM work to talk about experience
> and how we are handling stuff, and one at Friday noon where I want to
> discuss the NM process future (i.e. this proposal and other ideas). If
> you are an (D)AM, currently in NM, plan to apply, applied earlier, or
> just interested in the topic in general, please join us.

I am not at DebConf (other commitments prevented it) so I await
the notes with interest. Please can you raise the idea of moving
to a portfolio+quiz format, as previously suggested?

Please cc me on replies.  I am not currently on -newmaint.

Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct

Reply to: