Re: Reforming the NM process
On 4/11/06, Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > I strongly disagree that 2.3 is a long-term thing. It should be
> > started years ago, but it isn't too late yet. We should push it with a
> > transition plan in mind (e.g: what we're going to do with the people
> > that is already waiting for DAM?), but the transition couldn't require
> > (more) work before applying, IMHO. We should block not really
> > interested people giving less privileges for those who do less as you
> > pointed out and be good with MIA and its procedures. I step in to help
> > writing a 1-year transition plan and contact the people that needs to
> > accept/reject some points, if you want.
> I don't understand what you have written. Can you reformulate it ?
In short it's: Let us start with the "long term" ASAP, considering
what we need during this transition.
> A long term plan can happen shortly if someone does it, but the change
> mentionned in 2.3 involve many people and as thus will required a great
> deal of coordination work.
> That's why Mark called it "long term" IMO. But with Anthony's recent blog post,
> I'm sure we'll start going into this direction.
Interesting post. I disagree with the term "Debian Maintainer", i
think we can get rid of that with the old NM process. If the person
has rights to vote or translate (considering a special infrastructure
to do that in the future) what will be the term? I suggest "Debian
Uploader", "Debian Translator", ... We can call "Debian Developer" or
"Debian Maintainers" the person with "full privileges", IMHO. Consider
that "new maintainer" should be the DD candidate, at least during the