On Thursday 06 April 2006 15:29, JC Helary wrote:
> Nobody's saying that you are going to stop being a developer. You can
> be proud of what you do being a developer. You've earned that status.
>
> But requiring people who are not software developers to understand
> they suddenly have become developers because Debian is special is a
> little far fetched.
> The bug is in the relation between "from new maintainer->to
> developer" and the corollary "other contributors don't _need_ to
> become developers".
I really don't think that the current terminology is gonna be a problem IF
the NM-page make it clear that the process is open to non-package
maintainers.
Now obviously the current current NM-corner doesn't do a good enough job of
that, which is a reason to work on rewording it so the page does make clear
that the process _is_ open to non-package-maintainers (something that's
being worked on elsewhere in this thread)
I think it should be apperant at this point that changing the terminology
from 'New Maintainer' and 'Debian Developer' to something else is
controversial enough that we're not likely to generate a consensus on it
any time soon. So could we please focus on the changes we can get consensus
on?
Also even if -from an outsiders perspective- the jargon used is quirky and
strange. I have to wonder:
if one is not even willing to look at the jargon used by the project from
the projects point of view. Then why on earth would one be applying to
NM-process in the first place? And how on earth would one expect to pass
the philosyphy and procedures part of the process?
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Attachment:
pgpHcYyVOezVS.pgp
Description: PGP signature