Re: Reforming the NM process
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (he@ftwca.de) [060416 23:08]:
> 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?
Both of this are not "hard" reasons why not, but just tell why not now.
I agree on them, but - as you said, this should be worked on.
> * Should there be a process to give the advocation rights back?
Well, basically like always - if there is a *very* good reason to
believe it will work better in future, yes. But mostly, if one is
out, he is quite out (unless the ban is for a certain time, like "no
more advocations in the next half year").
> * 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?
The second is of course a good question. Basically, if we notice someone
fails the guidelines (which don't exist right now, see above) in a
serious way more than once, one should really consider whether to trust
that someone enough for giving him basically root access on all machines
running Debian.
> >> 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 :)
That was after I started IRC. As long as one doesn't IRC, it's hard to
get advocates. Afterwards, it's easy. But I think that even people who
don't IRC should get the chance to become DD.
>
> >> 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).
This is already settled by the constitution: voting rights are by
definition exactly with the DDs.
The question is just: When do we consider people to be DDs? This is not
really defined, and we could make the gates more open (which I would
prefer), but also close them even more. In the end, there is no correct
answer, but just different preferences. Both directions are not "wrong"
in a strictly technical sense.
> ... 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.
I disagree with that. Exceptions are something that are no rules. And I
think we really need to be able to say "we make exceptions as we see
fit". This was always my approach in Debian and it has worked well.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Reply to: