On Thursday 21 June 2007 16:50, Anthony Towns wrote: > * multiple Debian developers have requested the individual's > removal for non-spurious reasons; eg, due to problematic > uploads, unfixed bugs, or being unreasonably difficult to > work with. This by itself is too ambiguous and too error prone, should I bother and remind anyone what will happen if there is no strict framework that leaves no room for doubt and failure? About the rest of the proposal, I'm unsure what it will (try to) accomplish. Better package quality? Totally the opposite I would say. More people dealing with Debian? Get more incentives for people to work on more fields, rather than just a plain package maintenance, eg. security, QA, i18n, docs, etc. Personally, I think that while there will be definetely some people who will benefit from this proposal, on the other hand, I doubt it will make the actual distro better, and as for the size... well, I guess we'll have to double our mirrors' bandwidth soon :-) Also, expect many errors at least on the initial burst of package uploads, which will mean extra load on QA people, RMs (who will actually have to fix the RC bugs before release), because new DMs, just like new DDs (and old), are more prone to make mistakes, and although undestandable, unless they are watched over by a sponsor -like the situation is now with NM- many mistakes will go overlooked. Do we really want to do that? I'm not really against this proposal, but, forgive me, I fail to see what the actual gain for the project and the distro will be in the long run. I might second it if someone gets to the trouble of answering my questions. Konstantinos
Attachment:
pgpFjuJ_7RKog.pgp
Description: PGP signature