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

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:	panu.kalliokoski@helsinki.fi, +35841 5323835
technical contact:	atehwa@iki.fi, http://www.iki.fi/atehwa/
PGP fingerprint:	0EA5 9D33 6590 FFD4 921C  5A5F BE85 08F1 3169 70EC

Reply to: