Hi Steve Sorry for the delay, I just arrived at College :( > I see the following weaknesses in your proposal compared with AJ's: > > - Only people who are going through NM qualify. This reduces the set of > maintainers benefitting from it to those who have the time, interest, and > skill to go through an NM process which is deliberately heavyweight > *because* it's used for brokering access to DD status. I do not see this as a weakness. My gr proposes the opposite and wants the people to at least pass some sort of NM to show that they know about some important parts, such as license stuff ... > - Commit access to the keyring is only granted to those individuals who are > already part of the NM process. This is effectively a conflict of > interest; while I agree that the DAM and FD should have access to the DM > keyring, particularly for the purpose of revoking privileges of people > who they believe shouldn't be able to upload packages on their own, if > they're the *only* ones with access to the DM keyring then any time spent > adding DMs is time taken away from adding DDs. Atm the FD queue is always empty and processed pretty fast. Of course, this is not the same for AMs and I agree with you, that there might be some more AMs needed. Although it needs to be considered, that some DMs are just on their way to become DDs. Anyway, you might be right that more AMs are needed, but I do not see that FD/DAM causes a problem atm (note that FD has access to the keyring and does not necessarily need DAM in my proposal). So far no DD seconded my proposal, therefore I am not quite sure if it is worth to continue discussing it. I will try to answer to your arguments, but if nobody seconds it, I will keep it quite and not spend heaps of more time on the debate. Cheers Steffen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.