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

Re: Reforming the NM process

Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:

> * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (marc@marcbrockschmidt.de) [060411 18:40]:
>> 2.1 Multiple advocates
>> ----------------------
>> Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about
>> two). This should get the number of people advocated with a "Errr,
>> I met him, he seemed nice" down. At the same time, encourage prospective
>> advocates no to advocate too fast.
> Basically, if there is an advocate who advoates people like this, he
> needs some serious cluebatting - or even refusing to accept him as
> advocate anymore.

It sounds like a good idea, but has many drawbacks:
 * We have no clear guidelines for advocates. This should be improved,
   I'll probably work on that in the next few weeks.
 * We have no process that allows us to take the right to advocate
   people from DDs. Should I alone decide that? The nm-committee?
   Someone else? Do we need to document it in public? Wouldn't that lead
   to endless flamewars like we've seen with the expulsion process?
 * Should there be a process to give the advocation rights back?
 * After some time people will ask why only some people are allowed to
   advocate, while others can't. All people involved are DDs, who are
   supposed to be trustworthy. Why should I trust someone to sponsor
   properly if I don't trust his advocation messages?

>> Also, two advocates are not a problem for someone who should apply in
>> the NM queue - if there is only one project member who's willing to
>> advocate you, something is foul anyway.
> Oh, I shouldn't be here then. :)

I know that the same two people who wanted to sponsor me would have
sponsored you, so I don't see the problem, Andi :)

>> 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> For the first stage, applicants need to identify themselves and speak
>> about the Social Contract, the DFSG and a bit about Debian's structure.
>> For package maintainers, an intensive package check follows. If
>> everything went fine, these people get upload permissions for *these*
>> packages (and nothing else). If they want to adopt new packages, their
>> AM does a package-check once and fitting upload permissions are
>> added. We may need to create tools to automate this, as it could become
>> quite much work for the DAM.
> The question is: At which stage to add voting rights? I personally
> consider any active, permanent contributor to be eligble for voting -
> but well, one might disagree with that.

I think only "full" DDs should get voting rights (yes, this contradicts
what aj proposed in his blog).

>> Work done since finishing the first stage should be thoroughly
>> checked. To get actually useful data for this, we could make it
>> mandatory to wait 3 or 6 months between the first and the second stage.
> Actually, there are (few) people right now who just go through NM in
> almost no time at all - like for example Thiemo Seufert needed 6 days
> for all the questions from his AM. I don't think that such people should
> be forced to wait 3 months for the full account. (One might say
> "normally, you need to wait for at least 3 months" - that leave space
> for the exceptions.)

... and for flames. Sorry, like I was writing in another mail in this
thread: The appeal of clear rules is that people can't argue with
them. That lower reduce the frustration level quite a bit.

BOFH #444:
overflow error in /dev/null

Attachment: pgpQedDr6oGqN.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: