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

Re: Developers vs Uploaders

On Thursday 15 March 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> > How about going after "Try hard to improve things, but don't shake the
> > house too much while at it"?   There is a "cost" to improving things,
> > and if you have to disturb everyone to do it, then that cost is high. 
> > It may not be worth it.
> What?  How does that not apply to the very DM proposal that you are
> defending?  Nobody has convinced me that the added bureaucracy

What added bureaucracy? It would seem to me that it would actually lead to 
less bureaucracy overall

If all you want to do is maintain 1 or 2 packages you have 2 options:
1) go through the whole NM proces:
  -> makes NM take longer for everyone, as there's more people needing to be
     assigned an AM, so waiting times increase
  -> lot's of them give up half way through (or that's my impression)
  -> IMO this is a net waste of time if you only want to maintain a
     couple of packages
2) keep uploading through a sponsor:
  -> non-optimal, delays can be somewhat frustrating at times (both for
     people reporting bugs, or sending in translations, and for the non-DD
  -> DD's have to spend time sponsoring, likely taking away time from other
     Debian stuff.

This proposal would likely:
- free up time for AM's, who will only have to deal with those that need
  full DD rights, thus also lessening the average time to pass through NM
- free up time for sponsors, who have don't have to waste time sponsoring
  old hands that haven't bothered with NM
- get more people involved as it lowers the barrier to becoming an official 
  part of Debian (that's important in that it makes people feel part of the
  project, makes them feel that their effort is appreciated), making it more
  likely they will both get and stay involved.

> and lengthened power hierarchy are costs which are outweighed by whatever
> advantages you perceive in this plan.

It makes the power hierarchy more fine-grained, and that's generally a Good 
Thing (as you don't need to give people wider access then they need)
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)

Attachment: pgpRFVlQDEdGs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: