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

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

Hi Holger,

On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 01:49:09AM +0100, Holger Wansing wrote:
> > > -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.

it's much easier to become a Debian Maintainer, than a Debian 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).

you can do that work as 'nobody' too ;)

> > > -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 :-)

well, Debian *is* complex.

> Remember it should be understandable for new people ...

sure, but making it sound simpler / less complex than it is in reality
might also be a diservice 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.

maintainers too.

> 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? ;-))

you are a 'Debian Developer, non-uploading' :)

which in other words means you're a Debian (project) 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 ...

they are. Your upload permissions are probably technically done by also
making you a Debian Maintainer...

> > > -<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").
No, Debian Maintainers are not Debian project members. Project members
can vote. Debian Maintainers cannot vote. You can vote.

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

we definitly shouldnt add more meanings to words already loaded with too
many meanings :/

> > 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...

I've released dev-ref 3.4.22 yesterday so we can merge this now and then
translators have still time 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.)

I think I'll merge your patch later (today?) and then go through it
again and reword areas where I think it needs reworking. It's definitly
a good base for future work!


       PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: