Re: Question about membership.
On Wed, Mar 24, 2010 at 9:17 PM, Charles Plessy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Following the ‘Membership procedures’ GR, discussion on membership were started
> after the Lenny release, but eventually stopped. In this thread it was proposed
> to trust DDs to nominate other members and I found the idea very interesting.
> In order to make it more consensual, there is probably a need for making
> concessions like shortlisting the trusted DDs according to some criteria like
> the time they have already spent in the project. I would actually be tempted to
> propose a more variable but more symbolic measurment of time: having been part
> of the project for at least one full release cycle.
I was sad to see the discussion die, because I liked the idea of
having ways to integrate people that were not packagers. However, I
do not think that simply "nominating" someone should give them full DD
access. I think that even if it has it's flaws, the NM process plays
a very important role, getting skilled people to work for Debian.
Simply nominating someone would mean a lot of people coming into
Debian without enough knowledge. This is NOT a good idea.
> I have put membership issues as a first priority in my platform. Partly because
> I have contributeed to the rejection of a proposal and feel resposible to not
> leave the Project in inaction, partly because I think that the the contribution
> of DMs is growing and I do not feel like leaving them out of the project. In my
> platform, I suggest in my second priority (less restricted operations) that
> social control can replace technical control. I think that most DMs could be
> DDs now.
DMs are not left out of the project. They have a different role, but
they are definitely not out of the project. Social control is very
hard to exercise on a project as big as Debian. We need to be able to
*trust* that person with their responsibilities, the whole point of
the NM process is to allow us to trust. A one-person nomination would
not give us enough trust.
> If I am elected DPL, I will re-open the discussion and lead them in a way that
> maximises everybody's contribution, for instance by making pauses if necessary,
> and by posting neutral summaries. After the discussion reaches conclusion, I
> will initiate a GR.
You don't need to be elected DPL to reopen a discussion or make
neutral summaries. You also don't need to be DPL to initiate a GR. I
think you are mistaking what the role of the DPL is.
> So my question to other candidates is simple: what is your opinion and program
> about membership?
My opinion is that the original proposal sent by Joerg Jaspert, maybe
modified a bit with the comments received during the discussion, is
what would benefit the project most. I would very much like the
discussion to be re-opened and a GR to be passed. Even if there is
consensus, this would be such a change to the current status, that I
think validating it with a GR is useful and thus a vote should be
called. I don't think the "one person nomination" idea would have
I'm not planning on starting the discussion myself, however. I'm more
interested in finding ways of attracting and keeping more people
active in Debian, and that's what I plan to work on.