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

Re: on the "M" of "NM"

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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: