Re: Developer Status
Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Now let us describe the way the account status is meant to be handled
> in future.
This mail has mixed future and present tense. Have these changes already been
implemented, or are planned?
>
> A new user can start out in two ways depending on their personal
> preference. The first is the non-technical way:
>
> Debian Contributor
> ------------------
> A DC is someone that has a strong relation with Debian through the work
> they are doing for/around Debian. Possible examples are translators and
> documentation writers.
>
> DC have to pass the ID check, agree to the Social Contract/DFSG and have
> successfully answered a set of questions[DCDMQ] similar to the ones used
> in the current first P&P step.[TEMPL]
Basically, they need to pass the ID check, agree to the Social Contract/DFSG and
have successfully answered a set of questions similar to the ones used
in the current first P&P step, to keep doing the same thing they have been doing
all this time.
> 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.
> In contrast to current DM this is based on source packages and allows
> uploads of new binary components, which have to pass NEW, too.
>
> While, strictly speaking, this increases the barrier to get DM compared
> to the current implementation of DM, we do not think it is an
> unreasonable or too high level. Anyone who is able to get a package put
> together in a lintian clean way will be able to get DM without much
> effort or time used.
So this basically requires DMs to do the (somewhat reduced) P&P and T&S
questions, and I don't see the real reason for this. The idea behind DMs is to
maintain a package one knows how to maintain. The only reason I can see here is
that DDs are not being trusted in their advocations, which is a far worse
problem that won't get solved by this.
> Those two "classes" are the initial set in which every NM will end
> up. After six months as DC or DM one might chose to become a
> Debian Member or Debian Developer. This
> - ensures that the interest in Debian isn't short-term.
Why do people keep thinking this is a good thing?
> - enables them to learn more about the workings in Debian and generally
> helps them for the next step.
They should be doing this on their own, and not force an arbitrary limit on
them. What if they did this _before_ applying for DD/DME/DM/DC status?
> - leaves everyone the option to stay DC or DM, if they do not want/need
> more rights.
>
>
> After the 6 months time in Debian Contributor/Maintainer are passed,
> applicants can apply to get Debian Developer status. There are now 2
> different "classes" of DD status available, one with and one without
> upload rights. To not add confusion we selected to name them "Debian
> member" (no upload rights) and "Debian Developer" (upload rights).
> Both are project members, i.e. with voting and all other constitutional
> rights, the term "classes" does not indicate any kind of "first" or
> "second" level membership.
While you might not intend that, it still does. DDs would be DMEs + general
upload rights, which is clearly a DME < DD relationship.
>
>
> Changes to existing Debian Developers
> -------------------------------------
> No changes are done to existing Debian Developers, until they ask for
> it. If you want to drop down to DME, no matter if you want to keep a few
> packages maintained like a DM does, drop the NM-Committee a mail.
You say there is no firs or second class, but DDs would drop _down_ to DMEs.
This all smells like a whole lot of bureocracy for no gain to me.
--
Felipe Sateler
Reply to: