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

Bug#817914: developers-reference: globally change "new maintainer" into "new member"


Holger Levsen <holger@layer-acht.org> wrote:
> > Therefore, it's of course not possible and also not useful, to substitute
> > all "maintainer" into "member" and the like (think about phrases like
> > "maintainer script" and "maintainer field in control" and ...), which are
> > still correct and will not be renamed into "member script" or "member field".
> > 
> > This only as a explanation, why not all occurrences of "maintainer" have
> > been switched to "member".
> I totally agree and I also think you've done a few substituion too many,
> see below...
> > (Yes, this relativizes the bug title a bit :-) )
> > I hope I got it mostly right.
> in any case: many thanks for your quick response! let's get this settled
> now!
> some (quick) comments, stuff I havent commented is fine IMO.
> > -Given how easy it is to become a Debian Maintainer, you might want
> > +Given how easy it is to become a Debian Member, you might want
> >  to only sponsor people who plan to join. 
> to become a Maintainer?

Maybe ...
But as a first step, it would be enough to only be a member.
For team maintained packages you can also do package work | package uploading
work as a member (at least these are my experiences; see below).

> > -The process of registering as a developer is a process of verifying your
> > +The process of registering as a member is a process of verifying your
> ... a maintainer?

Here we refer to the NM process itself, which is officially named "New Member
process" these days.
So I think "member" is fine here.

> (maybe then we also need one paragraph explaining that developers are
> maintainers too? and developers are members, but members not necessarily
> developers nor maintainers? ;)

Yes, but question is, if we want to make it that complicated :-)
Remember it should be understandable for new people ...

> > -Therefore, we need to verify new maintainers before we can give them accounts
> > +Therefore, we need to verify new members before we can give them accounts
> >  on our servers and let them upload packages.
> not sure if members can get server access. maintainers surely can. maybe
> "new developers/maintainers"? (also to answer my own question in the
> previous paragraph, maybe be explicit and say
> 'member/developer/maintainer' if we mean that?

Members have chance to get permission to access dillon :-)))
At least in my case.

I am not a developer, and I am not mentioned as a maintainer in some packages'
control file, so I assume I am a member? ;-))
And I got upload permissions for d-i packages, and I got access to dillon.
As it seems the rules are always somewhat flexible ...

> > -<title>Resources for Debian Developers and Debian Maintainers</title>
> > +<title>Resources for Debian Members</title>\
> see above :)

I assume that all developers and maintainers are also members (in german we
say "kleinster gemeinsamer Nenner").

As written above: maybe we should not make this more complicated as needed
and use 'member' as a cover term?

> Even if this seems a bit confusing now I'd hope it was that bad. Have
> you seen anything where you would like to rework your patch or do you
> think it should rather go in as such?
> (once it goes in it will trigger translation updates so we better are
> careful...)

This is why I first thought "Huh it's maybe to late for this change now?", 
since translators maybe have only little chance to catch up...
But to not postpone this too much I prepared a patch anyway.

As a summary:
I see no strict need to do reworking on my patch IMHO.
(You can always find corner cases, where the terms are debatable, because
of historical growth of the document and the rules in Debian, as already
said. But I think it should fit this way.)

So long

Holger Wansing <hwansing@mailbox.org>
PGP-Finterprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508  3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076

Reply to: