Re: Fear the new maintainer process
Am Mit, 26 Jul 2000 15:56:10 Mark Brown Sie:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > Am Mit, 26 Jul 2000 15:11:08 Mark Brown Sie:
> > > It's not about the entry in the queue - it's about the time it takes the
> > > application manager to work this out when they try to process that
> > > applicant. It's frustrating and it's time that could be better spent
> > > getting another applicant through the process.
> > So fix the process. Don't put the blame on the applicant, if you can
> > avoid it. We need their help, not they our shiny @debian.org address.
> Right - but in general, you seem to be against process, particularly
> process that makes getting in more difficult.
This is true, I consider the quotation about the openess of Debian
on the new maintainer page a bit ironic. I know no other project that
is driven by volunteers that has so high bureaucratic and effective
But this is something that is determined by the majority, and if the
majority feels that Debian should be more selective about new
I will acknowledge it up to a personal limit and draw my consequences,
not try to change the course of the project.
> In this case, the
> suggestion has been to put a few hoops before the initial entry to the
> queue like providing a GPG key or an indication of what they intend to
> do for Debian. Nothing extra - just moving some parts of the process
> earlier on.
This is not how I see it. I see it that basically an application can
be rejected if there is a couple of weeks/months delay between an
initial contact and the response. That some New Maintainer Application
Managers (tm) seem to be equating this with acknowledgement of their
is only making it worse.
This is inaccpetable. There is no need to change anything on the status
of an application just because there is a delay. New maintainer
didn't throw the towel when Debian didn't process any application for
about a year either. And I won't even talk about the literally hundreds
of completely unattended bug reports in our database.
If you say you want to clean out the application because the email
or there was no sign of life for let's say a year, there is no problem
with cleaning the queue entry. But just deleting it because there was no
timeley response, which is a very subjective measure to, is ridiculous.
Isn't there a way for an Application Manager (tm) to return an
If he does not get a timely response, he could just do that and so he
take revenge this way.
I want to repeat: The applicant wants to help US. WE require the
cumbersome new maintainer procedure. So WE have the responsibility
to reduce the workload for the applicant as much as possible. This means
especially that an applicant should never be required to apply twice
months, for spurious reasons.