Thomas Goirand dijo [Wed, Oct 05, 2011 at 10:21:06PM +0800]: > > Because NM is what people are already used to, it's part of the Debian > > culture about joining. Overloading that, preexisting, acronym is sort of > > the maximum change we can do preserving "backward compatibility", but > > still bringing existing processes closer to the correct (according to > > Constitution and GR) terminology. > > > > I'm not saying we should only do backward compatible changes, a more > > general reform of terminology might be good. But I AOL the many comments > > that perfect should not be the enemy of the good: let's do this one and > > improve over the status quo. (I.e.: your brainstorm is welcome, but > > let's avoid that it gets in the way of smaller, less invasive, > > improvements.) > > > > Cheers. > > > In this case, I'll have to voice my concern again that I really fear > that it's going to be even more confusing if we change the words > behind the abbreviation only (nobody will know about this change if > we don't advertize it enough). > > Also, I don't get why you are writing that changing names for DD/DM > will deserve a GR and constitution review, when changing from NM to > NM wouldn't. Is it because NM isn't written into the stones of the > constitution? I am here with Thomas. Yes, the NM process is known, both by initials and by full name. I think just doing a s/Maintainer/Member/ would be similar to adding an epoch version to it. People would be as confused by following NM 0:* than by following NM 1:*. If we want to make things clear, rather than sticking to old and confusing name schemes (that reflected reality back where you were either a Developer/Member/Maintainer or nothing at all), is to abandon old namings and come up with new ones. And if it needs a constitutional amendment, well, so be it. If we come up with clear reasoning and naming, I don't expect it to fail. Yes, it's more bureaucratic, but there's a reason for the process to exist. Precisely, to make us all DDs 1) think it over until it's a good enough proposal and 2) participate even if we don't follow the relevant mailing list. Having your proposal go through a GR will get the input of more DDs, give everybody the opportunity to comment on it, and inform all of them on the outcome.
Description: Digital signature