Re: Developers vs Uploaders
* Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> [2007:03:18 12:36 +0100]:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Erinn Clark wrote:
> > - It's not obvious what problems it's meant to be solving
> >
> > Is it meant to be a stepping stone for NM? Prevent sponsor(ee) burnout
> > and boredom? Is it meant to replace NM eventually? If so, what are the
> > current NM problems _besides_ sponsoring and boredom that it's
> > solving? And what's causing all the waiting -- is it reasonable or
> > not? Are the NMs at fault? etc.
>
> The problem is to allow more small-scale contributors. We have volunteers
> who would like to maintain only few specific packages and who don't want
> to go the burden to go through NM to be able to do that job. The skills
> required to maintain one or two small packages are different from the
> skills that the NM process requires.
How are they different? You have to demonstrate technical ability and
some level of comprehension about Debian policy. That seems to be true
for both NMs and potential DMs. NMs just have to write more essays.
> The checks for the NM process are more strict and rightly so, because the
> rights of a DD are important.
Which rights do you mean? (I assume voting rights here -- are there others
you're referring to?)
> Additionnaly, once this possibility exists, it just make sense to use it
> for NM who have already proved their skills. I fail to see why it would
> augment the length of their NM process. On the contrary, the time won for
> his sponsors can be reused to train other people and/or process more
> people in the NM queue.
Well, most people in NM are just waiting for someone else -- this goes
for AMs as well. And the more people you add, the more likely you are to
have to wait for them to get to you.
> > Because here's what I think about those: NM could be revamped
>
> The NM team awaits your contributions. :-)
I'm still in therapy for the time I spent in it. Maybe later. ;)
> > - Overly bureaucratic
>
> I would prefer drafting a jetring entry for a good sponsoree of mine
> instead of continuing the sponsorship... sponsorship is also bureaucracy
> past a certain point.
But above all of that, would you prefer they got through NM?
> > - More power structures
>
> I see that as good thing when we have more people able to empower other
> people to do Debian work.
In theory it's good -- in practice? ... Well, have you ever been a part
of a management-heavy system? At some level it becomes a process fetish
and I think that's something worth fighting.
> > - Trust and upload rights
> >
> > I don't think upload rights should be given out trivially, but I also
> > think that if you've got upload rights, you might as well have full
> > rights and that you ought to have been through all of the "inspection"
> > a current NM/DD would have to go through. The idea I'm getting from
> > this is that you don't even have to agree with Debian philosophy or
> > have much verification for who you are in order to have upload rights.
>
> That's simply wrong. Of course, we'll require them to agree to the SC and
> DFSG. And of course, that there will be checks, that's why we have
> sponsors for DM _before_ they get added.
OK, my mistake.
> But you know agreeing to the SC and DFSG (and checking the GPG key) is the
> shortest part of the NM procedure.
I do. So what I'm seeing is:
- They agree to the DFSG
- They agree to the SC
- They have their key signed
- They demonstrate enough packaging ability and community integration to get into
this DM keyring and earn the right to autonomously upload packages
Why not just make them DDs? If we trust them enough with our users'
machines, surely we can trust them with our own? They can easily opt out
of using their @debian.org email addresses, and most DDs already opt out
of using their voting rights. :)
At best, this is a replacement for NM. But mostly it seems a lot like
pointless bureaucracy added on to an already long and tedious process
for which there's barely enough manpower.
--
off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide
Reply to: