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

Re: On terminology

[2010-07-06 14:05] Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at>
> * Martin ?gren <martin.agren@gmail.com> [2010-07-06 13:28:31 CEST]:
> >
> > [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2008/10/msg00005.html
>  I really would like to see this proposal (or at least something along
> the lines) to be carried on with.

Me too.

> This discussion shows clearly that we
> have a need for a rework of it and need to offer better possibilities
> for long standing contributors like translators and others that won't
> ever touch a package and through that have no voice within the project
> because they aren't allowed to vote.


Actually, I think there may be no need to split into packaging and
non-packaging roles.

It could be implemented that way:

On the first level, we could have ``Debian Contributors'' which would
include the Debian Contributors and Debian Maintainers of ganneff's
proposal. Some of those could have upload rights for specific packages
and some not. To get upload rights, one would need to undergo further
checks. Actually, this would be similar to ganneff's proposal but
without different role titles. Acquiring upload rights could be
a separate step taken later on.

The second level could be named ``Debian Member'' *or* ``Debian
Developer'' (``developing'' in its broader meaning). These people
would have voting rights, no matter what work they do for Debian.
Again, full upload rights could be acquired by undergoing additional

I, personally, would appreciate if no separation between packaging and
non-packaging roles would be taken. Upload rights could be given after
passing additional tests on both levels. But basically there would be
no distinction if someone can upload or not. The levels would be
defined by passing non-packaging-related Tests which are the same for

With this approach, the term ``Maintainer'' would be orthogonal and
mean everyone who maintains a package. I think this would clarify the
situation even more.


Reply to: