Re: Fear the new maintainer process
I am answering both replies in one mail.
On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 11:13:26AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 09:08:23AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, 26 Jul 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > > I want to repeat: The applicant wants to help US. WE require the
> > > cumbersome new maintainer procedure. So WE have the responsibility
> > Uh, WE also have 500 other developers, the last thing we need is to
> > actively persue people who have a limited interest in joining.
I never said we should. We should just not actively throw them out if
the reply takes long. The process should allow for random delays on
both sides, otherwise there is something wrong.
And WHAT makes you think that a delay is a sign of "limited interest"?
> > IMHO if someone cannot be bothered to respond to NM in a timely maner then
> > maybe they really don't have time/desire to contribute to Debian.
You would prefer it if for every Debian maintainer Debian is the only thing
in the world that exists, right? Do you only want a reply, or do you
want a substantial reply? Of course, everybody can say "I am still alive"
if he is not unable to reach his email for a while, but what if the delay
is because someone need sto get hold of a scanner for the ID, or because
he became ill, or whatever?
You are playing very lightly with the volunteer effort offered to Debian.
I hope that other people show more responsibility towards the project.
> Agreed, and their lack of interest might be holding up others in the NM
> process that ARE willing to contribute. NM team needs to set a hard limit
> on how long they will persue a potential developer, after that they get
How can this "holding up" happen? And if it indeed can happen, this
is an inherent problem of the process, and the process should be
changed to allow for such delays without holding other people up.
They don't need to "persue" something, they just need to wait.
I am getting the feeling that some (many?) people around here are
trying to effectively close up Debian by trying to find ways to
effectively accept less maintainers without saying so. This continues
the "the boat is full" attitude that was omnipresent in the last long
discussion about this issue in autumn last year.