[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bits from the DAMs

(CC'ing -project as well)

Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> writes:

> Hi,


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[2] 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[3].

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[4] 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[5] 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.


Jérôme Marant


Reply to: