Re: Reforming the NM process
On 14 Apr 2006, Raphael Hertzog verbalised:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>>> The bigger we get, the more difficult it is to follow that
>>> everybody is behaving in accordance to our rules, and the more
>>> important it is to give only the rights that someone need.
>> I'm not opposed to finer grained permissions for package
>> uploads. But those should be additional checks, not less
>> checks. The quality and the overall coherency are already low
>> enough. Telling people "you do not have to look around or
>> understand what this is all about" will not solve
> We'll never tell that! We just tell "we trust you to maintain <x>
> according to our standards but since you didn't went (yet) through
> full NM, we don't trust you on working on anything you'd want".
Err, I am not sure we do say that. Seems to me that the fact
the packages need be checked by a sponsor means we say we are not
quite sure you can package things to our standards yet, but we
applaud that you are trying to learn, so here is an experienced
person to help to reach that level of skill.
not sure if this discussion is going anywhere
How many chunks could checkchunk check if checkchunk could check
chunks? Alan Cox
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C