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

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: