Re : New maintener proposal
[ I don't cross post to debian-devel, but I think a lot of people haven't
got the time to subscribe to debian-project and receive Debian's leader
proposal. Actually, I have fetched the message from the archive...]
> Here is the proposed procedure for handling new-maintainer requests. Any
> comments are welcome of course, although I think it's pretty solid by
> now.
I'm not a maintener yet ( and not, a fortiori, a debian developer - there is
a strong distinction between the two in my mind ...).
I don't know if I'm allowed to comment, but I will.
> The procedure can be divided in a couple of stages:
> 1. initial contact
[..]
> 2. checking identification
[..]
> 3. `internship period'
[..]
> 4. final acceptance as maintainer.
[..]
> After all the previous stages have been completed the new-maintainer
> ctte decides of the applicant will become a developers.
> During any of these stages an applicant can be rejected by the
> committee. (This means a sponsor cannot reject an applicant).
The first reaction when reading these specifications is that this is organized
in order to not allow any new developer ( 4 long steps of test, and always
the ability to say : 'no !'). This seems just justifying the present situation.
I do not say that everybody wanting to become a maintener or a developer has to
be automagically accepted.
But I think that organizing the system so that Debian can get rid of the bad
mainteners ( i.e. that do not maintain) would be the best solution.
This way, you can put the bad *new* mainteners as well as the bad *old*
mainteners out of Debian.
The test for *EVERYBODY* is very simple : is the job done ? No ? -> OUT !
Even for somebody like me, not even a debian maintener, the problems are
obvious. And it's clear that the problem is not related to the new
mainteners. Actually, there has been no new mainteners for several months,
but as far as I can see, the problems are still here...
IMHO, if you want to put a filter, just begin by making a difference between
a maintener ( packaging an application ), and a developer ( coding the utils,
the boot-floppies, etc ; or involved in the 'core' system - base, essential..).
A maintener will have an address like me@maintener.debian.org. This way,
he would not be psychologically encouraged to break the upstream version
just in order to prove he is a 'developer'.
Only the developers will have the address me@debian.org ( the aristocracy of an
aristocracy ).
Asking to join Debian will be, necessarily : becoming first a maintener,
and *choosing a package in the orphaned ones* ( this list will be huge,
if every 'maintener not maintening' is pushed out ).
> Stage 2: Checking identification
> --------------------------------
>At this stage the committee (or one of its helpers) processes somebody
>from the above mentioned queue to check the identification. If this
>does not succeed for some reason (for example somebody can't be reached)
>this is reported to the applicant (via email for example) and he/she
>is returned to the queue.
>
>For proper identification, we must know that the person actually exists
>as the person that they say they are, that there is a known location for
>that person where they can be spoken too, the persons current situation,
>as well as long term contact information must be clear.
>
>The exact way of checking the applicants identification is left to the
>committee. Possible options are:
>* pgp or gpg key, signed by an already registered developer
>* a copy of a valid picture ID, with a valid mail correspondence
> address.
>
>At this stage the wellknown phone-interview also takes place.
Please, read a message sent by Mr Atsuhido Kohda ( sorry for the mispelling)
in may or june on debian-devel.
The procedure is good if Debian doesn't want new members.
But if you do want freshmeat, please think of a geographical organization for
the administration purpose.
Guys, you may be exasperated by the message. But remember that if you want to
have the great pleasure to reject me, you must, first, allow me to apply...
And under these circumstances, I will not :-)
--
Thierry LARONDE
thierry.laronde@polynum.com
website : http://www.polynum.com
Reply to: