No because, as you'll see in my edits to cobako's proposal, the aim is to have people think in terms of "membership" and not in terms of "developership". Which will obviously make it easier for long term non-maintainer contributors to understand that they are also welcome. All this is really a perception problem.I think the name "member" is worse than "developer" *because* it places the emphasis on membership (belonging) instead of on developership (doing thework).
Well, it is already accepted that Debian Project Members are Debian Developers (I put the capital letters for emphasis). That is already indicated in the NMP and in the constitution.
Although your point about the _meaning_ of "developing" is valid, you seem to forget that Debian is a _software_ context where development is usually meant as _coding_.
In the same context, translators are called localizers and _not_ developers.
We have a perception problem here and sticking to a wording that made sense when mostly coders where contributing will not solve anything.
Would you really feel "downgraded" if called "DPM" instead of "DD" ?
We have no shortage of folks already who "belong" withoutcontributing much to the project, I don't think this is the model we want toemphasize.
Well, obviously they don't "belong" very much if they don't produce anything. And I have no doubt some of those "folks" think they are "developers" but that does not affect the model either ?
(We also have plenty of people who contribute heavily to theproject without being recognized as members; but I think that "member" is a lesser title that doesn't do justice to their contributions -- I want to seethese people recognized as *developers*, not just as members.)
Right now, if I am not wrong, the whole of the localization process is simply not recognized whatever you call it. And I have no doubt a big bunch of the people who contribute sincerely to the project would never consider starting to NM process because of the emphasis on "maintainer" and "developer".
We are not discussing what good looking title give to people who are long terms contributors, but how to clarify an already existing process so that people who never considered applying, because they don't call what they do "development", eventually realize that their contribution is just as important as the maintainer's one next door.
If that requires selecting more neutral words then such words should be considered.
Besides, Debian is a Project, and in any "project" based lingo one usually uses the term "member" to indicate active contributors. Hence the emphasis on "Debian _Project_ Member" and not simply "member".
lose that. I'd rather see us do a better job of communicating this principle to prospective developers instead.
I think that is fair, and I think that is one part of what is at stake in the discussions we are having.
The other part is (and that is what started the thread), if the QA process requires a strict selection of the "technicians" that are involved in the release, why does the voting process require the same thing ?
Jean-Christophe Helary