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

Re: Developer Status

Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 04:56:36PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>> My name is on the Maintainer field of 2 packages in main, and I
>> think we can consider the Maintainer fields as "a list of
>> contributors" (evidently, not all of them). I haven't (formally)
>> agreed to any document, my key is not signed by anyone in the
>> project, I haven't been advocated by anyone and certainly have not
>> answered any set of predefined questions. Why should the bar for
>> non-developing contributors should be different than mine (ie, they
>> have to do more than just the work they are contributing)?
> Nobody is saying that to contribute in general you will need something
> more than at present. For example, nobody is proposing to get rid of
> sponsors (which are now, and will be also in the future, to sponsor
> anybody's work), or to inhibit people submit patches to the BTS (they
> are contributors too!).
> Still (part of) the proposal is to introduce a particular class of
> contributors which is also able to vote on choices of the Debian
> project (elections and GR). In the initial proposal that class happens
> to be called "Debian Contributors", but that's just a matter of
> naming, and you can argue that it is an inappropriate one.

The Debian Contributor class is a class of people that can't do anything. Debian
Members can vote. I think that the Debian Contributor class (which in the end
is a mere ACK that their work is appreciated) should have a particularly low
bar. Perhaps one advocation or two.

> Still, I hope you see the reason for adding some checks before letting
> people to vote upon choices which are bounding for the Debian
> project.
> After all sponsored uploads and patches are subject to review, why
> voting rights shouldn't? And note that the "bar" would basically be
> ID+P&P, which boils down to checking that you have an identity and
> that you share the ideals of the Debian project.

Of course. I have to note that I'm arguing against parts of the proposal that I
think aren't OK, not the whole thing. I think that the general idea of the
proposal is good, but it is not correctly implemented.


  Felipe Sateler

Reply to: