>To me, the difference between the DM and DD status stands on a matter
>of trust in 3 components (those are the main ones I have in mind right
>now):
>* trust from the rest of the community that the contributor will
>act/behave in the best interest of the project
>* trust from the rest of the community that the contributor read and
>will follow the project documentation and standards and make it evolve
>(in the best interest of the project)
>* trust from the rest of the community that the contributor have the
>technical expertise to help the project move forward
>And I think that the demotions DD -> DM (the ones I'm aware of) did
>happen because the trust in one of those 3 components was broken.
>The status of DM is, to me, a status where you work on (re)building
>the trust. I don't think being a DM means less technical expertise.
>That would seem a bit reductive.
Hi Everyone;
Charles has discussed the DD and DM roles with respect to technical
expertise. Debian has long sought technical excellence and that part
of the discussion is interesting on it's own. The concept of demotion
within the project could be a useful topic of discussion (again, on it's
own). The intersection of these two topics is probably appropriate
on this list.
It bothers me though to see this topic of trust brought up. Does the
project want to say that a DM is less trustworthy than a DD? Charles has
already commented on the 2007 DM proposal being used as a punishment for
a DD. Should a DM becoming a DD be viewed as a promotion? Our CoC is
actively being viewed and discussed. I am grateful for some points
Russ Allbery has brought to the discussions. It is too easy to focus
on one or two points without considering the ramifications. These
discussions are full of slippery slope arguments that will surely lead to
pain.
I need some time to collect my thoughts on these topics. If I am slow to
participate in some of these discussions, please do not take it as an
indication that I care less about the project. I am hoping that more
thoughtful voices will surface and we can build upon points of agreement.
Richard Hecker