Re: non-uploading Debian New Maintainer process
* Henri Le Foll <firstname.lastname@example.org> [2010-11-06 14:11:37 CET]:
> I will explain more clearly what I have tried to say on the two previous
Actually you have received feedback for that already, but let's try
There is no need to rename things even more, especially with respect to
states that an applicant is only for a certain amount of time. This will
create a second class community which is tried to avoid. Granted, with
different permissions this is already the case, but it shouldn't be
carried out in wording additionally.
> I have some questions :
> 1. Is it possible to create a user group named for exemple
> "restricted" on the servers (say wiki or www) and allow a specific DM
> to have access to this user group ?
From what I know this is already possible since a while, I just don't
find the according announce mail for that.
> 2. Would it be a lot of work for the DM team if non-UNMA where added
> to the DM keyring ?
There is no actual reason for that, please drop the idea. Like pointed
out already, the DM keyring is for upload permissions for specific
packages, non-uploading DDs don't upload and thus it makes no sense at
all to add them to that keyring.
> 3. How long do you think a non-UNMA should stay in the NM process ?
As long as the processing takes, just like any NM.
> 4. Is it correct that now, the DNM process takes one year ?
> (See Applicants in Process on https://nm.debian.org/)
It always did depend and always will depend on the individual applying,
what they have done and how well they are prepared for the process. Also
it is a sign of still too less AMs.
> 5. What has an advocate to do to "check the application" of someone ?
Go the the applicant's status page and enter their Debian login into
the form. They will receive a mail that will tell them what to do. If
you could take a look at the debian-newmaint list (which is actually
much more on-topic for these kind of questions) you will see some
advocate mails in there.
> abstract :
> A DM-like status should exist for non-UNMA.
No, it shouldn't, and there is no sense to it, like was pointed out to
> A non-UNMA shouldn't wait to much time in the DNM process but could wait
> a long time in a DM-like status.
Why? What for? What does it gain the project, the NM or anyone else?
There is next to no sense in here to artificial delay an application,
not for uploading NMs, and not for non-uploading NMs.
> It should be easy for a non-uploading DD or a non-UNMA to have the
> rights that DM have now.
They will have to do the Task & Skills check, and I guess that would be
it. Appart from that there isn't much difference in the processes from
what I understood. Mentioning it to their AM or the NM Front Desk should
be enough for switching the process.
> I think the DM status was created because there were some people in
> the DNM process that have applied without having contributed enough in
> Debian. Their application to the DNM were canceled.
> I think this can happen again with non uploading DD.
The DM status was created to allow package maintainers to upload
packages they maintain on themself. There is no such permission
requirement for non-uploading contributors: They can be added to all our
VCS repositories through alioth, like some very good examples show
especially in the Web Team, through kaare-guest, madamezou-guest and
taffit-guest (alphabeticly sorted, don't jump on me for the ordering :P)
Given them an intermediate state doesn't gain anything because there
are no permission obstacles for them. For uploading NMs it requires them
to find a sponsor for every single package upload - that's a huge
difference. And sponsors are at times tricky to find.
> You could give more rights on a specific server to a specific non
> uploading Debian contributor.
Like mentioned above, that is already done to the best of my knowledge.
> for exemple rights to work on immutable pages of the wiki,
> help the transition work when a new wiki version is used ...
> (To speek only of the wiki)
The wiki engine supports ACL lists and through that doesn't require
server access to give a person special admin permissions.
> That's why an non-uploading DM status should exist.
No, that's why there is no need for it.
Just to let you know, I'm not part of the NM team, this is my personal
opinion, but I have the impression that it is shared (in at least its
core parts) by a fair amount of people. Adding a DM state for
non-uploading maintainers is adding the burden of additional bureaucracy
where people are already complaining regularly about the lengthy the
There is just one remaining thing in your mail that got me thinking:
> And they will advocate others to become non-uploading DD's :)
How would a non-uploading DD advocate someone for getting uploading
rights? This is the only part of your mail that actually stirred some
thoughts in me.
<dholbach> Last day of https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDeveloperWeek starting in
34 minutes in #ubuntu-classroom on irc.feenode.net
* ScottK hands dholbach an "r".
<Rhonda> Are they fundraising again?