Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)
Hello,
On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:53:36PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
> In message <[🔎] 20000801202137.A2720@ulysses.dhis.net>, Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote:
> >> In message <[🔎] 20000801194659.C2325@ulysses.dhis.net>, Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> >> >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote:
> >> >> Membership is a privilege,
> >> >
> >> >The privilege to work, or what?
> >> >
> >> IMO the privilege to be trusted to contribute to Debian,
> >
> >Thousands of people contribute to Debian without even knowing it. We still
> >use some upstream sotfware.
> >
>
> Marcus, they don't write the software directly for Debian, they write the
> software for other reasons. Those that do write things to directly aid
> Debian I'm sure are very welcome in the project. Authors are authors, and
> Debian developers are Debian developers. Please don't make arguments by
> abstracting statements like that without the proper context; it doesn't get
> us anywhere concerning the core point.
A privilege is a "special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by
all" (wordnet). You said "the privilege to be trusted to contribute to
Debian". Many people outside Debian are to be trusted to contribute,
directly or indirectly. In fact, most contributions to Debian are
indirectly. Without those, Debian wouldn't exist in the first place, and
couldn't develop much.
I didn't abstract, my argument was on the point.
> >> represent it well
> >
> >I am not sure. Only some delegates and the project leader may represent
> >Debian. Other people might try and if they do it well, get the backing of
> >the project. If they don't, I don't want to know what will happen. I can't
> >just say "foo, and I represent Debian".
> >
>
> There have been several discussions about this in the project (not all were
> public) and (I think this was the general consensus afterwards) if you are a
> developer and misbehave sufficiently actions can be taken. Any community
> has rules and regulations, even if they may only be implied in some cases,
> and going against those is looked down and/or upon.
So there is no privilege, as well as with the next point:
> >> and to adhere to the social contract
> >
> >I can do it anyway.
> >
> >> and support the DFSG
> >
> >I can do it all the time, and lots of people do without being Debian member.
> >
>
> Neither of the two points above are logical arguments to counter my point.
> Many people do it anyway of their own free will, but Debian developers are
> expected to adhere to them. That's the difference. You're free to act like
> a vegetarian without joining Vegetarian's Anonymous (ok, so I couldn't think
> of a better example :) but if you do you adhere to their rules.
Again, a privilege is not something I have to do or follow. What you rightly
say is that following the Social Contract and DFG and constitution etc is
an obligation to every Debian developer. That's almost the opposite of a
privilege.
[I snipped parts of the trust issue, because trust is somewhat orthogonal to
privileges, and I don't want to dilute the point]
[However, let me point out that the chain of trust is nowhere complete. I
doubt that most Debian maintainers audit the source of their packages
thoroughly before uploading.]
> So: no confirmed identity -> no traceability -> less end user trust.
Do you know if Ulrich Drepper exists? Are you going to ask him for a signed ID?
> >I am rather scared by a statement that effectively assumes that being part
> >of Debian is a "privilege" that needs to be protected by people who
> >probably want to abuse it.[1] The only privileges you have as a Debian
> >maintainer is: Upload packages with a name that already exists to
> >the archive (overriding the existing package with that name) and reading
> >debian-private.
> >
>
> I think that this again is explained by the point of trust I just made.
> Please consider this, and understand why its so important. It's too easy
> for one person to break the trust in Debian as a whole by botching packages,
> for example. That's why these particular privileges you mention must not be
> handed out to just anyone.
I agree it is too easy. It should be fixed by making the ftp upload
mechanism more robust and easier revertable. Than less burden of trust can
be put on the volunteers, and everyone feels a bit better.
This is not only a matter of trust: Mistakes with a similar effect could
happen. (Or well meaning NMU uploads, etc)
> As far as being part of Debian being a privilege, yes, for me (and I'm sure
> for most others) it is. Please note however that this does not mean it
> should be hard to be accepted: it just means that you have to fit certain
> criteria in order to join.
However, this very reason (privilege) was raised to argue that the NM
process can be a bit harder than it needs to be:
"Membership is a privilege, and if you have to take a couple of
bureaucratic steps, so be it."
So, do you actually agree with my point?
I don't understand what you mean with "certain criteria" you mean. The last
sentence of the paragraph above seems to contradict the second last, and is
somewhat without meaning (the way I parse it at least).
> >[1] Because it furthers elitarism and doesn't further the idea that
> >volunteers effort is worth it. Please think about it: Saying Debian is a
> >"privilege" puts the value on the abstract Debian entity. I prefer to think
> >of the volunteers time and contribution as the value.
> >
>
> Off course it puts a value on the entity.
There is little problem with it, as long as people remind what the entity
consists of, and as long as the proportions are measured correctly.
[...]
> I hope that I've explained a little more clearly what I meant...
Actually, I have diffulties to see the relationship to the "privilege"
issue, but maybe you really didn't mean to talk about privileges, but about
social foundations etc. Those are entirely seperate, and confusing them
leads only to misunderstandings. In light of the wordnet definition, I am
offering you that becoming a Debian member is the privilege to be part of
Debian and form it, how about that? It is somewhat redundant, because it
essentially means being a Debian member is a privilege to be a Debian
member, but anyway, it seems what you mean :)
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org for public PGP Key
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de, marcus@gnu.org PGP Key ID 36E7CD09
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ brinkmd@debian.org
Reply to: