Re: On terminology
On 07/02/2010 11:14 PM, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Which is true, and it would probably be a good idea to clarify wording
>> that refers to Debian Members, since that's not the terminology that we
>> use in general and, with the existence of DMs, it can be confusing.
> Nowadays, we're asking people to become Maintainers so that they can
> become Debian Maintainers and *then* apply to the New Maintainer's
> process so that they can become Debian Developers.
> Am I the only one who has trouble -and getting laughed at- whenever I
> try to explain these to potential contributors?
> Can we _at least_ rename the NM process to be indicative of what it is?
I gues if we start renaming, we should do it properly.
(and I think the first really faulty thing was to choose the name Debian
Maintainers as maintainer is too widely used..., even maintainer and 'New
Maintainer' is confusing enough)
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprints: 06C8 C9A2 EAAD E37E 5B2C BE93 067A AD04 C93B FF79
ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F