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

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

On 4 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill spake thusly:

> <quote who="Wouter Verhelst" date="Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 08:58:57AM
> +0200">
>> The problem is more one of 'how do we identify those people that
>> aren't a Developer, but that do contribute regularly'.
> There are a number of ways of doing this although, like NM, it's
> ultimately a human process that is carried out in the context of
> guidelines. Ubuntu has separate categories for member and maintainer
> (only the latter can upload although they are equal in all other
> respects) and their process involves testimonial, demonstrated work
> over a long period of time, and review by an elected
> board. Something similar could work in Debian.
        Ubuntu also gives limited rights to its so called members. Can
 members throw out the benevolent dictator for life? fire all the
 members on the committees? overrule the peoject leader? Or any
 delegate? Propose and with enough numbers, change the very articles
 of incorporation or other foundation documents?

        I'd be happy to follow the ubuntu model -- gice every
 /. reader "full rights", but whittle down their powers so all
 they can really do is say they are members, and vote on some
 inconsequential things.

        This is not what franchise in Debian entitles you to.

>> Since Debian votes are conducted through GPG-signed mails and
>> regular contributors aren't part of the Debian web of trust, this
>> is more than a convenience issue. Note that Debian Developers
>> without an active key in the keyring can't vote, either.
> The system could still require a key signed by another Debian
> developer. The identity part of NM is not the most difficult part
> for many and is easily overcome even by non-developers.

        Err, all that means is that we have a weak trust in the
 identity of the people, but does nothing to address commitment,
 responsibility, and trust in that person, or any idea if they adhere
 to the foundation principles of the project.

        Ultimately, the powers weilded by voting members affect me. I
 am willing to listen to directions from my peers, I am less likely to
 be inclined to take direction from anyone who has submitted a random
 patch to the BTS. I am also unlikely to want to take direction from
 anyone who has not demonstrated a modicum of commitment to the
 project. There is

        Now, if there are people like that who are not DD's, the
 question we must ask, is wjy are they not DD's?  If they are putting
 in the work, and have the same commitment as a DD does, even if they
 do not package stuff, why is the project not treating them as first
 class members?

        The solution is not to dilute the franchise, the solution is
 rather to induct all trustworthy significant contributors commited to
 the project as full members.

        It has never been about work -- else upstream authors doing
 all the heavy lifting should be the ones voting. It is about
 commitment, responsibility, and trust.

There's no future in time travel.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: