Re: The Debian Maintainers GR
Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> writes:
> For example, if a DM wants to later become a full DD, so far as I can
> tell they get no automatic credit for being a DM. While an AM could
> take that into account, it shouldn't have to rely on an AM to evaluate
> that. It should be a natural next step that can be taken by people
> who want to.
This isn't prohibited or prevented by the current proposal. Moreover, it
explicitly lists the FD and DAM members as people who can implement what
you are proposing here.
> I'm also not fond of the emphasis that the DM proposal has. I don't want
> to see the focus be on people who just want to maintain a few packages and
> don't want to deal with / pay attention to / learn about the rest of
> Debian. I'm happy to have people not get general upload access until they
> have passed checks on their ability to deal with NMUs, shared libraries,
> or other things that they don't care about for their own packages, but I
> think *everyone* with upload permission needs to go through P&P (not just
> the stripped down version in this proposal) and understand that they're
> making a committment to the project as a whole, not just to some
> individual packages.
This is a question of policy, and TBH, I'd expect FD/DAM to implement a
policy like this, which is against supported by the current proposal.
> I gather from the rest of your mail that you don't feel like you can
> effect change in NM and that's why you decided to fork the process in
> this proposal, but I at least feel from Joerg's response that this is
> excessively pessimistic.
I rather think that AJ is trying to craft a policy which is flexible
enough that FD/DAM/keyring-maint can adapt to whatever they feel
fit. Furthermore, I haven't seen one proposal in this thread which
wouldn't be implementable by the current proposal. Hey, it can even by
voided/disabled by keyring-maint or DAM by simply refusing every person
to go through the DM process. Furthermore, DAM/FD/keyring-maint is able
to make every further restriction or precondition they can think of.
The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are:
1. it has been proposed by AJ
2. it is too detailed (the micromanagment argument)
as for the latter, the proposal explictly talks about an 'initial
policy'. I read this as that the proposer of that GR expects it to be
changed in near future.
--
Gruesse/greetings,
Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4
Reply to: