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

Re: Developer Status

Lucas Nussbaum <lucas@lucas-nussbaum.net> writes:
> On 22/10/08 at 22:51 +0000, Clint Adams wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
>> > This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take
>> > us two for we)  and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster,
>> > Keyring-Maint, Secretary, FrontDesk and the DPL.
>> I am disappointed in all of these people.
> He wrote "discussed", this doesn't mean that all of them agreed fully on
> this proposal^Hdecision. It would be interesting to have the point of
> view of each of those groups.

You all know I'm lazy, so I'll just repeat myself:

| > (A small T&S basically, the most important T&S questions for them.)
| This seems excessive. The point of DM was to kill off all the
| bureaucracy and allow people in when they were able to convince a DD of
| their skills. Adding a (small) NM process makes DM completely useless, I
| think.


| Anyway, I've thought about this some more. At the moment, your proposal
| seems to have three goals:
|    (i) Allow non-developer contributors to become project members.
|   (ii) Get rid of the horrible hack that DM is and replace it with
|        something closer to NM.
[... stuff that was removed from the proposal and is now irrelevant ...]

| (i) IMO needs a change to the constitution, as said before. This should
| be a no-brainer, someone needs to prepare the changes, send it to -vote,
| then kick the secretary to do the CfV. This should go through without
| much discussion (draft title: "Constitutional Amendment: Allow
| non-developer members").
| (ii) is the messy part. Formally, doing it by declamation from
| DAM/ftp-team is iffy, as it gets rid of a process that was endorsed by
| the developer body in a GR last year.
| The other problem with your proposal is that you make it harder to
| contribute as package maintainer. Heck, making that easier was the whole
| point of DM, reverting that change and replacing DM by Debian's NM
| process five years ago (and that's basically what you are suggesting -
| T&S has grown excessively, a small subset of today's questions is what
| people needed to do 5 years ago). 
| The fact that the NM committee (and not some random DD) does the package
| check before allowing DM uploads should be enough. That's actually
| what I had in mind when I proposed something like DM 2 years ago - which
| was fine with you back then.

Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
38: Windows 95
       Das Fortran 77 der Benutzungsoberflächen

Attachment: pgpgWgq1v00BW.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: