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

Re: Developer Status

On Wednesday 22 October 2008, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> The second way is the technical one:
> Debian Maintainer
> -----------------
> A DM has the same strong relation with Debian a DC has, but additionally
> wants to maintain a limited set of packages without the help of a sponsor.
> A DM has to pass the same checks a DC has and very few questions from the
> T&S part[DCDMQ].
> A (very) small T&S basically, the most important T&S questions for them.
> They are allowed to upload their own (source) package. The allowed list
> of (source) packages to upload can be edited by any member of the NM
> committee[NMC], who will do a package check before they add new packages
> to the DM's list.

I believe everything is ok up to this point: why does the "NMC" need to review 
the packages? I mean: has there been any problem with the current way DMs are 
allowed to upload? can't <the project> trust in DDs as to what packages can 
DMs upload?

By adding this extra step it makes the process more complex and turns 
something useful into something more like a process with lots of paper-work:
It would require to:
1. first: find a sponsor to upload a package,
2. then become trusted, 
3. get advocated,
4. ID check (btw, will it still require keys to be signed by DDs? or are DCs 
or D<whatever> more than enough?),
5. T&S check,
6. SOC agreement,
7. NMC approval,
8. keyring-maints stuff,
9. NMC approval of packages.

IMHO this is going in the wrong direction.

> In contrast to current DM this is based on source packages and allows
> uploads of new binary components, which have to pass NEW, too.

That's great, but what is it going to happen to cases like #502943?

> Changes to existing Debian Maintainers and NMs
> ----------------------------------------------
> No changes will be done to existing Debian Maintainers, and the
> 6 months waiting time will not be applied to NMs who have already
> applied to become DD, unless they ask to be handled using the new way.

And would the annual ping still required?

Kind regards,
Raphael Geissert - Debian Maintainer
www.debian.org - get.debian.net

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Reply to: