Re: Reforming the NM process
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 10:15:20PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> > Now seriously, the reasons why a package in Debian is quite different
> > from a Debian package outside of Debian should be well-known enough:
> > ease of search and use for users and infrastructure for packaging
> > (such as the BTS).
> Those are minor things compared to the reputation of the Debian Project
> for doing high-quality packaging. Package quality, aided by a thorough
> Policy document which all maintainers aim to comply with, is what makes
> Debian something more than just a huge pile of free software in someone
> distribution's contrib directory.
I hoped the proposal I was making would allow us to eat the cake and
keep it too: offer an open upload area but keep the main archive under
strict quality criteria. I expect it to be easier to check package
quality, too, if they're being autobuilt and available for BTS reports
_before_ having been uploaded to the main archive.
> Besides, there is no value in a wide-open voting system. This is
> called an "Internet poll" and the results generally reflect whatever
> websites or blogs happen to publicise it.
Not if those people have to be properly identified via their PGP keys.
Such a simple requirement will already cut off the "casual Joes" that
only vote once because they saw the announcement somewhere. It also
prevents most ways of abuse.
personal contact: email@example.com, +35841 5323835
technical contact: firstname.lastname@example.org, http://www.iki.fi/atehwa/
PGP fingerprint: 0EA5 9D33 6590 FFD4 921C 5A5F BE85 08F1 3169 70EC