Re: Developer Status
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
> Lucas Nussbaum <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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:
If I understand correctly, that is the answer you sent to Joerg, right?
> | > (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.
How long has it been discussed? I am really surprised that your comments
still fully apply to the current "proposal" (it looks like a policy), so
basically your comments havn't been addressed. Really strange for a mail
using "we" to represent numerous teams/persons, including you as a
member of the Front Desk.
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' email@example.com | firstname.lastname@example.org
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net