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

Re: Reforming the NM process

On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> requiring the packaging and making available of open source software to
> be a hierarchic, rigid process, we are essentially taking that freedom
> away.

You can create (Debian) packages outside of Debian if you're not happy
with Debian.

> One could argue that an OS project like Debian is essentially
> different from building software in that everything in Debian should
> work together nicely without disrupting each other's operation.  But
> similarly, software is build on and around a common set of guidelines,
> and distributed freely, without any kind of "pre-approval" community.

The Debian policy is far stronger than your "common set of guidelines".
Thus we have important work to do and we have a responsibility to check
that the package meet our _own_ standards.

> I think the Debian project should adopt a totally different approach to
> trust.  The BTS is open to external contributors; why isn't the software
> archive?

Can you just go on samba.org and upload your own archive ? No. It's the
same for debian.org ... if you want to put something on debian.org, you
have to follow the rules of Debian.

> Furthermore, it seems unfair that NM's have more stringent requirements
> than existing DD's.  For instance, NM's must invest their time in pseudo

The NM process may have been more lax and accepted DD which are nowadays
causing problems due to their lack of social skills for example.

Don't you think we have a right to improve by being more selective?

You have to understand that. It's *normal* that we don't have the same
rules when we're 100 than when we're 1000.

> Let me add that the pre-NM process also has problems.  They are probably
> not so much problems from the point-of-view of AM's (since they need not
> get involved with that process at all), but when somebody enters the
> lengthy NM process, they may already have a lot of frustrating searching
> and futile attempts at contacting people.

And what about helping people who wants to improve that instead of
complaining ?

I do have ideas:
- write some tools to facilitate review and sponsorship
- use SVN repo for contributors so that we can see their work
  over time
- web interface to follow the set of packages (with a lit "need upload",
  "need review", etc.)


I'd gladly get help here and I spoke of that project very wildy already...

> achieve that is to educate people.  The act of teaching not only
> benefits the trainee, but also the trainer.  A proper teaching procedure
> will deepen the understanding of both parties on the subject matter.

NM process is not about teaching, we don't have the resources for that
currently. (I teached myself ... with documentation, questions on
appropriate ML, etc.)

For the rest, you're dreaming, we're not going to give vote rights
instantly. It doesn't make any sense. 

Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :

Reply to: