Re: Bits from the DAMs
(CC'ing -project as well)
Joerg Jaspert <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Here are few comments/questions.
> following the various "Bits from $foo" this is a small mail to summarize
> whats up with "the DAMs".
> 1. Introduction of the new DAM member
> First a small intro for all the people not knowing me:
> I'm a Debian Developer since 16 April 2002, doing work for the New
> Maintainers Process since 22 June 2002. Since then I helped a lot
> of people through the NM process, helped some to stay out, maintained some
> packages and tried to be a bit visible on IRC.
> At the end of 2004 I was appointed as a second DAM.
This is great!
By any chance, do you happen to know you were appointed as a second DAM
now while the Debian project (those who have some power within the
project) has always refused to appoint other DAMs for years?
> That much for the background. I'm now actively working on reducing the
> backlog of the DAM-queue and already got around half of it
> processed. Looking at the time I needed for it, we can estimate that the
> queue-size will be less than 10 somewhere at the beginning of March. (Not a
> guarantee or promise, just a thing we try to do).
Better later than never! Things have been lagging for months, I still
wonder why someone decided to fix it only now rather than when
problems become obvious.
> 3. DAM-rules
> To give the DAM-stage in the process a bit more "openness", we list some
> of the usual procedures we follow, that are important for you to know as
> an AM/NM.
> - We wont accept applicants who have only one signature on their GPG-key
> if that signature is made by the advocate. If it has only a signature
> from the advocate at least another one from the web-of-trust is
> needed. Not neccessarly a DD to sign the key, any other well-connected
> key is sufficient.
> Applicants will be put on hold until this is fixed, but it shouldn't
> last too long.
> This is to avoid theoretical things against us/the applicants, that
> they are "faked" by the advocate, by providing one or more other
> signatures from different people.
I don't get it. Do you have a concrete example that makes this necessary?
It seems more and more difficult to become member of Debian, which is
after all a volonteer-only project. Why trying to more and more discourage
people to contribute?
> - Also not accepted are people without traceable actions for
> Debian. Examples of this include
> - having only one package in the archive, with only one upload,
> - packages with dead upstream and no visible changes in Debian either,
> - a poor or non-existent handling of their bugs for the package(s).
What about translators? Isn't it time to give them a real status?
They definitely aren't second-class contributors.