Questions for all candidates: decentralization of power
I had meant to send three sets of questions on Thursday morning,
but things kept coming up, so I will send an unfinished one now.
1) 114 people have commit access to webwml. Given that version
control makes it easy to undo changes, minimizing risk and
impact, are there any legitimate reasons why this repository
should be restricted to a group any smaller than the whole of
2) wanna-build access is restricted to a small number of
developers, but there is no uncorrectable damage that can
be caused by someone making mistakes. Is there any legitimate
reason that wanna-build access should be restricted to any
group smaller than the entirety of gid 800 membership?
3) An ftpmaster cabal of times long past used to use the
phrase "mirror pulse" to justify oppressing the freedom of
other developers, but we do not hear those words used much
anymore. However, the word "trusted" has continued its
prevalence in situations where one developer is considered
better than another. Is there any legitimate reason why
one DD should be considered more "trusted" than another
without having earned such trust?
4) The tech-ctte has the power to appoint its own members.
I do not know why they should be allowed to self-manage
when their judgment on the issues raised to them has often
been less-than-stellar. It is also accepted that core teams
should have the same power, and one common claim is that the
team members have the right to exclude anyone who does not
get along with them or agree with their approaches.
Is there any legitimate reason why core teams should be
allowed to select their own members with or without external
5) Is there any part of Debian that should be restricted
to a small subset of developers, and if so why?
Note: since I am being political this year, I will disclose
that my answers to the five questions above are "No."