On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:13:21PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > (Ideally, in my opinion, there would be little or no sponsorship as there > is today and instead there would be detailed review of one's packages > leading to DM status for those packages as part of an NM process, with the > other cases where that isn't appropriate done as team maintenance with the > non-DD as part of a team. But that's an aside, and it may be that idea > wouldn't hold water on further examination.) On the other hand, the only way it will get examined is if someone who thinks it's worth trying has the ability to try it. Otherwise we end up with endless discussion that just doesn't go anywhere. Giving more people the ability to try out their ideas directly is valuable, and if the risks can be kept low, entirely worth doing. > > Why do you trust DAM/FD to do the right thing more than the people > > listed in the current GR ? > Well, I discussed that largely above. I think they're doing a good job > now. > However, I'd like to point out that the people listed in the GR *are* the > same people as the DAM/FD except that the GR adds AJ, Joey Hess, and Ryan > Murray. Ryan Murray is in the "already way overloaded category already" > and AJ has already said that he doesn't want to do package review and > seems to be more interested in doing the infrastructure work. The proposal as it stands allows *anyone* to do package review; the only thing it limits is who has commit access to the keyring. Our current keyring can only be committed to by James. Committing to the keyring isn't a very onerous task, which is why I'm happy to take it on; doing extensive pre-upload reviews of packages on an ongoing basis is, which is why I'm not entirely convinced it's something that's a good thing to rely on, but if it is, I think it should be something lots of people can do, rather than limited to some core team. As far as NEW processing is concerned, that's why I don't do it except when there's some special reason, why I was all for adding ftp assistants, and why I suggested the public examine-package output idea that Thomas Viehmann implemented and Sam recently mentioned on d-d-a. > Maybe what I missed was some intention that the DM keyring maintainers be > a rubber stamp on the advocacy process and not do any additional checks? 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. > Also, on another front, adding AJ, Joey, and Ryan Murray to a team isn't > exactly helping with getting new people involved who might have more free > time. Making it explicit that the DPL can add or remove people does, however. Cheers, aj
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature