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

Re: Developer Status

Joerg Jaspert <joerg@ganneff.de> wrote:


I'm pretty unhappy with the very non-Debian way you have when it comes
to making decisions and announcing them.

> If you are an existing Debian Developer or Debian Maintainer, don't be
> afraid, we are not going to take anything away from you.

And also that feeling you seem to have that you are above the lot of
mere mortals that we, DDs without delegations, are.

> the way it was instantiated outside of most existing structures has
> always made other groups in Debian uncomfortable. The ftp-masters

Pretty much the only thing in your proposal I agree with is the bit
about getting DM under proper controls.

Now about the new status you are proposing, my general feeling is:
more bureaucracy \o/ What you are proposing is way too complicated for
the outside world to understand.

I think adding a Debian Contributor status (no upload, no vote) with
labels (translator, writer, ...) is a simple solution that fits the
current issue pretty well.

On the contrary, what you are proposing seems like solutions looking
for problems to me.

Now on to specifics:

> Debian Maintainer
> -----------------

> 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.

I'm afraid you're going to need more than "very few questions from
T&S". I think it's important that DMs know their stuff, for we have
quite some crappy packages in the archive already and we don't really
need more of them.

They don't have to answer the more painful questions of the T&S
template (amazing what AMs can come up with, really), but "very few"
seems like not enough to me.

> 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.

And that I totally disagree with. Being lintian-clean doesn't tell
much about the quality of the package, and tells exactly nothing about
the quality of the packager.

I think we've had some examples of clueless DMs and even clueless new
DDs in recent times (proving that even a full T&S might not be
enough). Do you want more of that, or less of that?

I like the idea of progressing from DM to DD during NM, as it provides
some kind of an observation period. As applicants are required to have
some packages already when they apply, they could be granted DM after
the basic checks, then complete NM and start an observation period as
DM. To me, that's giving them full responsibility for their packages
early on so we can see how they handle them on their own.

> Debian Member
> -------------

> A DME can nominate themself as DPL, can be delegated rights from the DPL
> and can start any GR, basically do everything our foundation documents
> allow project members to do.

I have a problem with non-technical persons voting on technical
issues, or issues having technical implications for the developer
body. I have even more of a problem with non-technical persons leading
a technical project.

I am against this part of your proposal. Voting rights should be
coupled with proper understanding of the Project at large, including
the technical stuff, which is, after all, the base of this Project.

This whole status is useless. If you want to vote, go to DD
status. You'll get upload rights too, that doesn't mean you have to
make use of them.

I expect going to DD status to be something doable for any contributor
after a period of time.

> Changes to the DM Keyring
> -------------------------
> Keyring management will be moved to the control of keyring-maint.  The
> NM committee will decide who will be added or removed, similiar to the
> way keyring-maint and DAM currently work together.

No matter what happens with everything else in your mail, go forward
with that.


 Julien BLACHE - Debian & GNU/Linux Developer - <jblache@debian.org> 
 Public key available on <http://www.jblache.org> - KeyID: F5D6 5169 
 GPG Fingerprint : 935A 79F1 C8B3 3521 FD62 7CC7 CD61 4FD7 F5D6 5169 

Reply to: