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

Re: Developer Status


On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 10:37:23AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> I'd put it even more bluntly. The current problem is that NM is too
> slow, too sluggish, too boring. Being a DD requires a motivation that I
> wouldn't even dare to ask from the best employees in my company, and god
> knows I'm an elitist when it comes to code quality and technical
> interest.

You might be right.

> No, instead of attacking the big fat problem that being a DD is not a
> single phone call with Elmo anymore, we tackle the issue by adding even
> more sub-roles, so that people that get lost en route, have cookies
> along the path.

I don't think so.
We now have the DDs and we have some sort of DMs who are allowed to do
some stuff once only DDs were allowed to, and they can only do that when
following different rules.
Now, the proposal tries to put this DM status in the NM process. You can
become a DM and have some DM rights (as it is now) and then you can
become a DD more easily because you're already some steps forward to it.

But the more important part is IMO that the proposal *finally* respects
the non-packaging contributors (and there are many, I guess). For them
we can now have similar steps which in the end means DD rights without
the need of learning technical stuff they won't ever use.

This is not adding sub-roles on the way to become a DD. We already have
the DM status which means nearly nothing on your way to become a DD --
you have to go through the entire NM process, too. The proposal tries to
stop that by putting the DM status in the NM process. The new sub-roles
for contributors don't really affect becoming a DD since the prospective
DD can go either way but he's never got to go both of them.
This is adding possibilities for non-technical contributors to get the
very same rights they should have (IMO).

> If I recall right, Jörg was really against DM at the time. I thought it
> was because of that, I see now that it's because the project wasn't his.
> I'm blatantly disappointed in both the form and the ground of this
> edict.

And I'm very disappointed in project members who always feel the need to
insult (see the DFSG thread on d-devel or this one). This is about the
project and I'd appreciate if DDs could move their personal fights to
d-private or private mails.
MAYBE Joerg was against DM back then, and MAYBE he now sees that the DM
status turns out to work much better than he could ever imagine, and
MAYBE he learned from it and tries to give it another shot to move the
DM status in a better position in the project. Is this impossible?


Reply to: