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

Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal

Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Bastian Venthur wrote:
>>> In short, this DM status is complementary to NM. It's not working around
>>> any deficiency in the NM process.
>> I really doubt that. If I read Anthony's links he have in his GR
>> proposal, it all sounds very much like a workaround for the problems
>> with our NM process. Especially the second one "Reforming the NM process".
>> And the main question is is still open: Why do we need this DM status?
>> Which problem does it solve, if not the ones with our NM process?

> 1/ I know people who want to maintain package but don't want to be DD.
> The time involvement required to be DD is far bigger to the one required
> to be able to maintain properly a single package. And I don't want to
> lower the barrier to become DD because the role of DD are critical in
> the success of Debian (while the role a maintainer of a single package is
> not).

I agree that there might be a few people who don't want to be a DD but a
DM although I really can't understand why, since both classes are almost
identical (day to day work wise) and the "extra" D almost comes for free
if you're already a DM: just answer a few questions and wait a very long
time. So why would I as a DM refuse to become a DD? I really don't see it.

I really disagree that being a DD requires more time than being a DM. We
have DDs maintaining more than 100 packages, while others don't maintain
any package. No one forces me to maintain more than x packages. If you
just want to maintain one package, fine -- no one forces you to anything.

So after all, this argument doesn't quiet convince me.

> 2/ The NM process itself may not be perfect, but the results are good.
> If you consider the NM process a failure, why don't you accept the DM
> idea as an improvement to the NM process where people can start
> contributing earlier and waste less sponsoring resources ?

Because if this is supposed to be an improvement to the NM process, this
solution would be

  a) unnecessarily complex and
  b) not enough.

As I said a few mails before, it would be much more convenient to grant
NMs after they have been advocated (or after T&S) the rights a DM would
have and take a close look at the bottlenecks in the process.

> If you want to improve the NM process, fine, the NM team awaits your help.
> But don't block other initiatives to improve Debian for reasons which
> are dubious.

So my reasons are dubious? I guess I should let you vote for me and just
sign the ballot since your reasons are more reasonable than mine? I
thought we're discussing here?



Bastian Venthur                                      http://venthur.de
Debian Developer                                 venthur at debian org

Reply to: