Re: Re-thinking Debian membership
Ana Guerrero a écrit :
> Hi Lars,
>
> Thank you a lot for taking the time in drawing this nice proposal.
>
> I like it in overall, but with some little changes, that have been already
> covered in previous emails. Still I am commenting them.
>
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote:
> [...]
>> I think we should go in the opposite direction: massively simplify
>> the whole membership thing.
>>
>
> Totally agree on this.
>
> [Huge part of the email removed]
>
>> Proposal
>> --------
>>
>> * People should be allowed to join Debian when there is reasonably
>> wide-spread consensus that they agree with the project's goals, are
>> committed to working on those goals, and are trustworthy. The best way
>> to determine this is to have some number of people endorse a candidate.
>> However, there should not be too much opposition to a candidate, either.
>>
>> Concrete proposal: max(Q, 20) endorsements, two existing members
>> together can veto. The veto can be done anonymously via the Debian
>> Account Manager to avoid peer pressure to not veto. The DAM only
>> counts the endorsements and vetos, and does not make judgement calls.
>> All endorsements and vetos must happen within 30 days.
>>
>>
>
> I think max (Q, 20) is a high number, maybe max (Q, 10) ?
> And as well, 2 person vetoing seems like a small number, maybe 4 or 5?
>
>
>> * Membership in the project gives both voting and upload rights.
>>
>
> I think it is important everybody having the same rights, voting and
> uploading power. Even if some people never will be interested in voting (I do
> understand people who do not care about the DPL election), or you are an
> translator who never will make a upload.
> Still, documentation maintainers might want upload their docs package,
> translators could do QA uploads adding translations and so on. You do not
> really need so much skills for maintaning an easy package.
> For example, a python module is really easy to maintain, and in case of
> problems, you have the support of the python modules team where you can ask
> or another member can easily help you since all it is team maintained.
>
> I expect this work because I hope when developers endorse somebody for becoming
> a member of the project, endorses somebody who not is only interested in the
> project technically and philosophically, besides people who they trust and
> have some common sense...
>
>
>> * Membership ends 24 months after they're given, or after the latest
>> participation in a vote arranged by the project's Secretary. Members
>> may retire themselves earlier, of course.
>>
>
> No, please, voting should be voluntary.
>
On one side I understand that you don't want make voting mandatory, but
I really like the idea of:
- activity => you keep your membership
- inactivity => you lose your membership
Maybe we could find another way to define activity, like (upload || vote
|| svn commit || ...), which retrigger some time of memberships.
--
.''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
: :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer
`. `' aurel32@debian.org | aurelien@aurel32.net
`- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net
Reply to: