On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 01:57:53AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes: > > Giving more people the ability to try out their ideas directly is > > valuable, and if the risks can be kept low, entirely worth doing. > Hm. I have to admit I'd be much more inclined to vote for things like > this that I don't really like but that may work out if they > self-destructed in a year unless confirmed by a second vote. There's no real difference between that and someone proposing such a vote after twelve months. It'd still fail or succeed in the same way, unless you expected one vote or the other not to reach quorum somehow, or you didn't expect to be able to find seconds for shutting it down (in which case I don't see how you'd expect to get votes to shut it down). > > The checks done by the keyring maintainers should be the exception, not > > the rule, and ultimately should be about as common as rejections as the > > "passed through all steps and are now waiting for the DAM to create > > their account" stage in n-m. I've no idea whether that will be the case > > right for the word go, or how long it'll take to get to the point where > > it's obvious what checks are useful to DDs in general that getting it > > wrong really will be a once-every-few-years occurence. > Bleh. So mostly a rubber stamp, then. This feels like sponsorship except > with even fewer quality checks after the first sponsorship. At present, how do you find packages that have been packaged by non-DDs and uploaded with the minimal checks by a DD in order to review them, or just get a sense of how common it is? With DMs, you check for uploads signed by a key in the DM keyring. At present, if you find someone doing a poor job as a non-DD maintainer or as a sponsor, and they reject suggestions on how to do better, what recourse do you have? With DMs, if you can get other DDs to agree with your analysis, you can pass it on to the DM keyring maintainers and have the non-DD maintainer's ability to upload removed, or provide evidence that stricter procedures for advocating DMs is necessary. At the moment, it's not possible to review if sponsors and non-DD maintainers are doing a good or a bad job on average, and its at best difficult even in specific cases. With the DM process as proposed, that becomes much easier: there's a public record of who's advocating who and why, there's a chain of trust to the actual uploads, and there's the ability for negative reviews to actually result in some action. As far as doing the same thing under NM is concerned, consider how you would review if the DAMs, FD or AMs are doing a good or a bad job, and what recourse you actually have if you think they're not. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature