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

Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal

On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Bastian Venthur wrote:
> 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'm sorry but I don't think those people agree on the "just answer a few
questions and wait a long time". The reality is that you have to respond
to 4 sets of questions, and each of those take up to 4 hours.

Those people have like one evening in the week to contribute. They want to
use that time for real work.

> 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.

Sure, once you're a DD the problem is different. You've gone through the
NM process recently, so you should be aware of the time it takes and how
understandable it is that you may want to avoid it if you're not
interested in being very regular contributor. 

> > 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.

I don't see why you insist to make it mutually exclusive. It can be both
at the same time! A dedicated status for those who don't want to be DD and
a temporary status for NM who desire to have uploads right sooner.

I fail to see the complexity that you're seeing. The sponsor mails the
new team, the teams adds the key and you're done. As you may have noticed,
the current NM team is part of this new team...

You said "not enough" and I respond "don't let the perfect be the ennemy
of the good". It is a right step in the right direction, so let's do it.

> > 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?

We're discussing, but your objections are rather superficial IMO.
It looks like "it would be best if we could have integrated that more
tightly in the NM process and I'm not sure if we couldn't do better" and
not an objection like "this is broken because X and Y".

So I suggest you to not stand up against this proposition if you're not
convinced that this would negatively impact Debian. It might be that it
doesn't have as much success as I expect, but then we haven't lost much by
tring it out.

Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :

Reply to: