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

Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal, updated

On Wed, 2007-06-27 at 12:41 +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
> ==== Debian Maintainers Proposal ====

I welcome the idea of enabling people to work on Debian, but it seems to
me that this proposal (even with the latest changes) mixes some
concepts, that it creates more work, and duplicates some work done by at
least keyring-maint, DAM and Front Desk.

Also, I'm thinking that in practise, the proposal touches some things
that are defined in the constitution. While it doesn't come out as
directly altering the constitution due to its practical language and
different approach, it does change the contributor classes, whose
definition, I believe, belongs in the constitution where DD's and their
powers are defined. Sponsoring is one thing, because then the DD is
always a supervising middle-man, but would a DM be a "member" of Debian
or not? The constitution is based on the assumption of a single class of
members plus a few posts seated by members.

Perhaps the most proper way to make changes to the contributor classes
would be to first amend the constitution, creating a new class, and only
then issue a GR outlining how the practicalities will be handled (if
needed). There is also an alternative to just creating a new class that
is more general and, in my opinion, has other benefits:

Why not change NM to be a procedure where the applicant can apply for,
and receive, one ability at a time -- and alter the constitution to
allow such a pick-and-choose approach to DD powers instead of all or

So to receive the equivalent of DM the applicant could, for instance,
tick a few boxes on the (NM) application form, indicating
acknowledgement of the SC, DFSG and DMUP and include a GPG key (signed
by at least one DD). The advocate would then submit their advocation,
which would be automatically handled. After that, the applicant could
apply for the ability to upload already-sponsored packages, and leave it
at that. The key would be added to the keyring (a separate keyring if
needed for technical reasons).

If the applicant wanted, they could apply for other things (at the same
time or later), such as a login to Debian machines, unrestricted upload
ability, GR/voting ability, etc. Those sub-applications would trigger
different actions such as a full P&P or T&S, or whatever is defined as a
prerequisite for the ability in question. The notion of "member" would

This would ensure that no unnecessary work is done to give abilities
that the applicant doesn't need. At the same time, it means that the
applicant would receive the needed abilities as soon as possible,
without having to wait to get everything at once.

I know a lot of people are excited about this DM proposal, and I would
probably rank it over Further Discussion myself, since I think it has
practical value and it's nice to see that there are people willing to
work on an implementation. I also know that this proposal is supposed to
be independent of NM, and I understand that the proposal may be all that
can practically happen right now. But perhaps it would still be
preferable for some to have another alternative on the ballot along the
lines of what I've described above. Perhaps the people eager to
implement DM would consider implementing this instead?

Does anyone agree? If there is some agreement, perhaps we could draft an

Fabian Fagerholm <fabbe@paniq.net>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: