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

Re: Reforming the NM process

On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 05:25:13PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> 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?

So there are DDs that not only can't follow directions for the advocacy
process, they will also throw a shit-fit on the mailing list if they are
blocked from being advocates *because* they can't follow directions?

Can we throw any such children out of the project right now, please?

Being an advocate is not a constitutional right of DDs.  The advocacy step
was added to try to *help* the FD weed out candidates who aren't ready.  If
there are developers abusing the process in a way that works against the
needs of NM, there's no reason the FD and the NM committee should take the
recommendations of those developers.

And if they can't follow directions, and they can't understand *why* the FD
doesn't value their opinions, *and* they start flamewars about it, then
their brains are defective and they should be tossed out on their asses.
No, really.

Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org                                   http://www.debian.org/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: