Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs
Romain Francoise <email@example.com> writes:
> Russ Allbery <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> I think unlimited upload access should be simply another one of those
>> sets of permissions that some people have and others don't. Those who
>> need that access to do their work can receive it after appropriate
>> vetting of their ability to use that access appropriately, just as
>> someone would volunteer to join ftp-master, or DSA, or keyring-maint,
>> or the Lintian maintenance team and would, after appropriate vetting,
>> be given additional privileges to do that work.
> In your vision of things, who would be responsible for granting
> these privileges and judging whether someone can be trusted to have
NM and DAM for unlimited upload access, at least. I think it may vary
depending on what the permissions are, but for things like that, I don't
see any reason to change who is doing the vetting from the current model.
> I think our current model of giving all DDs access to the whole archive
> if they successfully complete NM works.
I do too when NM includes T&S. The point is that we have contributors who
aren't interested in packaging and don't have any need or desire to go
through T&S and learn a bunch of information about packaging that they'll
never use. One shouldn't have to go through that part of NM unless one
wants to have unlimited upload access.
> We have procedures to deal with abuse, and we have tools to review the
> work of others (like the PTS, lintian.d.o, etc). Why move to a culture
> of having to ask permission?
I don't believe giving people unlimited upload access without going
through T&S is a good idea.
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>