Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes: Heya, > * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt (marc@marcbrockschmidt.de) [060411 18:40]: >> 2.1 Multiple advocates >> ---------------------- >> >> Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about >> two). This should get the number of people advocated with a "Errr, >> I met him, he seemed nice" down. At the same time, encourage prospective >> advocates no to advocate too fast. > Basically, if there is an advocate who advoates people like this, he > needs some serious cluebatting - or even refusing to accept him as > advocate anymore. 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? * Should there be a process to give the advocation rights back? * After some time people will ask why only some people are allowed to advocate, while others can't. All people involved are DDs, who are supposed to be trustworthy. Why should I trust someone to sponsor properly if I don't trust his advocation messages? >> Also, two advocates are not a problem for someone who should apply in >> the NM queue - if there is only one project member who's willing to >> advocate you, something is foul anyway. > Oh, I shouldn't be here then. :) I know that the same two people who wanted to sponsor me would have sponsored you, so I don't see the problem, Andi :) >> 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights >> ------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> For the first stage, applicants need to identify themselves and speak >> about the Social Contract, the DFSG and a bit about Debian's structure. >> For package maintainers, an intensive package check follows. If >> everything went fine, these people get upload permissions for *these* >> packages (and nothing else). If they want to adopt new packages, their >> AM does a package-check once and fitting upload permissions are >> added. We may need to create tools to automate this, as it could become >> quite much work for the DAM. > The question is: At which stage to add voting rights? I personally > consider any active, permanent contributor to be eligble for voting - > but well, one might disagree with that. I think only "full" DDs should get voting rights (yes, this contradicts what aj proposed in his blog). >> Work done since finishing the first stage should be thoroughly >> checked. To get actually useful data for this, we could make it >> mandatory to wait 3 or 6 months between the first and the second stage. > Actually, there are (few) people right now who just go through NM in > almost no time at all - like for example Thiemo Seufert needed 6 days > for all the questions from his AM. I don't think that such people should > be forced to wait 3 months for the full account. (One might say > "normally, you need to wait for at least 3 months" - that leave space > for the exceptions.) ... and for flames. Sorry, like I was writing in another mail in this thread: The appeal of clear rules is that people can't argue with them. That lower reduce the frustration level quite a bit. Marc -- BOFH #444: overflow error in /dev/null
Attachment:
pgpF4GClipGKl.pgp
Description: PGP signature