<quote who="Manoj Srivastava" date="Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:13:30AM -0500"> > On 4 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill spake thusly: > > > <quote who="Wouter Verhelst" date="Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 08:58:57AM > > +0200"> > >> The problem is more one of 'how do we identify those people that > >> aren't a Developer, but that do contribute regularly'. > > > > There are a number of ways of doing this although, like NM, it's > > ultimately a human process that is carried out in the context of > > guidelines. Ubuntu has separate categories for member and maintainer > > (only the latter can upload although they are equal in all other > > respects) and their process involves testimonial, demonstrated work > > over a long period of time, and review by an elected > > board. Something similar could work in Debian. > > > Ubuntu also gives limited rights to its so called members. Can > members throw out the benevolent dictator for life? fire all the > members on the committees? overrule the peoject leader? Or any > delegate? Propose and with enough numbers, change the very articles > of incorporation or other foundation documents? Ubuntu members get to vote on the members of the community council, most similar to the Debian project leader. All members get equal votes in this regard. Clearly, the role of Mark Shuttleworth is an undemocratic one in Ubuntu and it's my least favorite things about the project governance. I would not suggest Debian adopt such a model and I have publicly expressed uneasiness with it. > I'd be happy to follow the ubuntu model -- gice every > /. reader "full rights", but whittle down their powers so all > they can really do is say they are members, and vote on some > inconsequential things. But that's not what happens in Ubuntu. The total rights of Ubuntu members may be less than the non-technical rights of Debian developers' but the maintainers in Ubuntu have *zero* extra power over the non-technical ones when it comes to non-technical issues or project leadership. I'm saying that non-technical contributions to Debian should be recognized with enfranchisement equal to technical contributors when it comes to non-technical issues. > > The system could still require a key signed by another Debian > > developer. The identity part of NM is not the most difficult part > > for many and is easily overcome even by non-developers. > > Err, all that means is that we have a weak trust in the > identity of the people, but does nothing to address commitment, > responsibility, and trust in that person, or any idea if they > adhere to the foundation principles of the project. I've said in other posts that I want to recognized significant and sustained contributions. Those contributions should be at the same level for technical and non-technical contributors but we should be able to recognize contributions of both types. > The solution is not to dilute the franchise, the solution is > rather to induct all trustworthy significant contributors commited to > the project as full members. > > It has never been about work -- else upstream authors doing > all the heavy lifting should be the ones voting. It is about > commitment, responsibility, and trust. That's precisely what I was suggesting. Perhaps we're not in disagreement at all. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill mako@debian.org http://mako.cc/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature