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

Re: Developer Status

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 05:40:32PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> >> 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.
> > 
> > No.  Current Debian Maintainers also need an ID check, agree to
> > SC/DFSG/DMUP and be advocated.  The only thing that is added (and that
> > was made clear by Joerg), is that they need to answer a very limited set
> > of questions.
> I am talking about the DNDCs here. DNDCs have no priviledge whatsoever
> besides getting included in a list.

Yes, and possibly getting a @contributor.debian.org e-mail, appearantly.
So what does Debian want to do?  We want to show those people we
appreciate their work, and we want them to be able to tell others that
they do work for Debian.  We also want this to be worth something, so we
shouldn't add just anyone to the list, but only people who agree with
our philosophy.

In order to be able to say anything, we need e-mail most of the time,
and in order to identify someone as "the person I'm talking about", we
need a signed key.  So the ID check is going to stay.  For the
philosophy thing, we need agreement with our foundational documents
(which isn't any problem, of course).  The need to be advocated seems
reasonable to me as well, to maintain the status of that list.  So
there's only answering the questions, and I think that was only the case
for DDC, not DNDC.

> > Becoming a Debian Maintainer is supposed to be a light-weight version of
> > the New Maintainer process.  It's not a "I'll skip the New Maintainer
> > process entirely"-version.
> If the current Debian Maintainer process is failing for some reason, please
> elaborate. If it's not, then I don't see why adding more checks is useful.

I don't think it's failing, but I also don't see where the "more checks"
would be.  You're talking about the very limited T&S questions?  Jörg
made it clear that this wouldn't be much trouble, and that people should
be able to finish the checks in a very short time.  You may be right
that there's no reason for them, and in that case it would be better to
remove them.  But it's also not a big issue IMO.

> But I think that for general upload rights the bar is way lower. As I
> said in another message, 1 year is enough to do a lot of work, but
> spending half of that year waiting is not useful, I think.

If a person needs to learn about Debian packaging at the start of the
year, then I don't think it's reasonable to expect much work on more
than a few packages, at least in the first 6 months.  And for a few
packages, there's no need to get full upload rights.  Just becoming a DC
is enough for that, and that needs no waiting.

> > You seem to want to rush total outsiders into the most priviledged
> > positions of the project.  Why would that be a good thing?  What is the
> > problem of letting people work 6 months with slightly fewer rights?
> I don't want to rush people into privileged positions. I object arbitrary
> limits, specially when I think the limit will miss many important cases.

I don't see the many cases you are talking about.  One effect of this
proposal is that people should apply for DC when they are getting
started.  If people don't do that, but instead are active but not in any
keyring, then 6 months is a long time to wait before being able to apply
for DM.  It could be good to allow skipping of the delay for one month
per advocate, which means you need to get seven advocations (one to
start, plus one for each month) to start immediately with a DM
application instead of DC.  If people are really active, getting seven
advocations shouldn't be too hard.  If they aren't, then the waiting
isn't a bad thing.  That sounds like a good idea, actually.  Jörg, what
do you think about this?

> > Of course there technically is a full and almost full rights membership.
> > What I think he means to say, is that DNDMs should not be looked down
> > upon, and that they do get everything they need from the project.
> That's why I said "you might not intend that". If they are effectively
> almost-DDM, there is a large room for looking down.

Which is also why I prefer my naming scheme.  Almost all the time,
people will be talking about DMs then, so there's no reason to look
down; we won't even remember who is DDM and who is DNDM.

Of course giving DNDMs full upload rights solves the problem as well.
IMO that is acceptable, since a) those people are DM, so they must be
trustable and b) uploading is so open en checkable, that people who do
mess up can have their upload rights revoked.


I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org).
If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader.
Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text
   in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word.
Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either.
For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: