On Sat, Nov 17, 2007 at 08:29:52PM +0100, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> [2007-11-18 04:48]: > > DAM (and FD, and AMs and nm.debian.org) is a policy position -- it's > > about deciding who's allowed to do what, rather than a technical > > position that involves keeping some software/hardware working; it's > > very subjective and that's about it. Adding more DAMs (or AMs or FD > > members etc) is straightforward. > Actually, it's not straightforward, simply because "deciding who's > allowed to do what" is not straightforward. There's a big difference between straightforward and easy. Adding DAMs isn't easy, but it is straightforward: - find acceptable candidates - talk to existing members about candidates - expand team with candidates (or replace existing team members with candidates) It's hard because we've got a lot of requirements for "acceptable" candidates for DAM to meet, which last I knew left our pool of acceptable candidates at zero. I don't know if anyone's tried running a crash course in DAMing, like the release assistant stuff [0] in order to create some candidates, though. Changing keyring-maint isn't straightforward because we don't really have a widely agreed upon understanding of what exactly the role actually entails as distinct from DSA/buildd/ftpmaster/DAM (could keyring-maint include keys for buildds? exclude DD keys? retire DDs?), but would be easy to actually do ("hey, Bob, you're keyring-maint now! have fun!"). Adding AMs otoh, is both straightforward and easy. And conversely changing the n-m process so we don't keep having bottlenecks isn't straightforward, and even if we knew what was needed probably wouldn't be easy. Cheers, aj [0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2007/06/msg00007.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2005/07/msg00009.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2003/03/msg00007.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature