On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
> On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote:
> > > 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)
> >
> > I'd better complain then.
> >
> > 1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we should be
> > striving to have fewer classes.
>
> Does it really? as pointed out earlier in threads about this we have 900+
> non-DD maintainers. so it seems to me that this "class of Debian
> participant" already exists. All the proposal does in that respect is make
> the existing relation official.
* how many are still active ?
* how many are actually DD that never reuploaded thoses packages with
their @d.o address ?
* how many are actually DD that do not use their @d.o address ?
* how many are not in NM ?
* how many would be in NM if NM wasn't completely outrageously
complicated and long ?
> > 2. It empowers the wrong people.
>
> It empowers a group of current contributors to do their contribution in a
> more efficient manner. By doing so it also free's up time of other
> contributors playing middleman for the first group. How is this in any way
> a bad thing?
He wasn't thinking of the DMs but the people that would deal with the
ring I think (but I may be wrong).
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpDnZBkl72WF.pgp
Description: PGP signature