Re: leader2013
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 8:38 AM, Stefano Zacchiroli <leader@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 07:09:50PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> > <quote>
>> > NOTE: The vote must be GPG signed (or PGP signed) with your key that
>> > is in the Debian keyring.
>> > </quote>
>>
>> This is wrong (at least for some definitions of wrong).
>
> Well, yes, it is, but just because, traditionally (as in "10 years
> ago"), we used to have only one keyring and back then being a Debian
> Developer corresponded to have a key in that keyring. These days things
> are technically more complex and depending on what you do in the Project
> your key will show up in different keyrings.
Thats fine, and I know that, but its unfair to say that the mail is "clear"
(and comments on IRC were a lot less "nice" compared to the mail), especially
if the reader is "obviously" not someone who has a long tradition in Debian
and therefore lacks the knowledge to get it "quiet clearly".
It's of course a failure of e.g. the press who picks up the voting and says
that the "Debian community" is voting on a new DPL.
And as Neil points out it is of course also a mistake by me to assume that
the debian-keyring package actually contains this "Debian keyring" the mail
refers to (hence the trick question "right?", wasn't "clear" enough I guess).
What I am saying is that it might also be a mistake of Debian to assume that
everyone reading a -announce list (even if it is d-d-a) is an expert, who
knows all history and documentation in existance.
You can't avoid all possible ways of misunderstanding everything at all times,
but we could at least try to close the smaller loop holes like this one.
Care for a lengthy example? (if not just skip to EOF, what follows is
very borderline d-curiosa content; if my first mail wasn't already.)
"who is a (Debian) Developer?" is surprisingly hard to answer without
knowing a lot about Debian.
Try to clear your mind and then read §3.2 of the constitution.
§3.2.1 is satisfied by (hopefully) everyone who ever did something in Debian.
§3.2.2 allows to expel as well as not to admit Developers, yet, the "maybe"
and the negative wording at least suggests that this is not the default.
Of course, if you know that the "agree" is not some mental only thing, but
includes a public statement (which DMs also do, so you have to know that
not any public agree will do) and that §3.2.2 is the constitutional way of
saying: "NM is the process proving §3.2.1 and regulated by DAM" everything
is fine. (related exercise: Try to find a reason why any delegate is allowed
to admit new Developers, just only DAM chooses to do it – hint: read §8.1)
I hear you scream: "That's crazy, you can't be serious!" and I completely
agree and I might be crazy (my mother didn't had me tested), but this isn't
an invented example and I really can't be that special that only I am asked
questions like who I have voted for based on "obvious" and "clear" rules
which in this example (not) allow me to vote …
(okay, for this specific one I might be that special, but thats not the point)
> But there is still only one notion of project membership, which the
> Constitution calls interchangeably "being a Debian Developer" and "being
> a Debian Project Member". Those FWIW are the terms I think we should
> stick to. Both DAM and the NM people at large have done a great job at
> uniforming terminology in our documentation on "project member"
> (e.g. the "New [project] Member process"), but unfortunately the term
> "non-uploading DD"---which I agree with you is not nice due to a
> pejorative connotation---is struggling to survive.
Ignoring all traditions and even the constitution I would say it would be
better to hold onto "Debian Project Member" and drop the "Developer"
(which is what the Consitution really uses, which is even harder for
at least some non-native english speakers as they miss the
"Debian Developer" == "Developer" != "developer" difference)
as it is far less likely to be mixed up, but yeah, you can't ignore the past,
I am not here to rewrite the constitution to be idiot-proof (no offense;
Einstein said it doesn't work anyway) and for internal use you "obviously"
need to differeniate at times between "normal DDs" and "the other DDs" as
you do for FTP masters and DSA (aka roles, not member-state), but as
said it is actually a different topic^Wcan of worms. I was asking for the
right term for addressing "the other DDs" if need arises (as it was here).
So again, all I was really saying is just that at least in -announcements
we should not require massive amounts of Debian knowledge and should try
to be a little nicer on all communication channels if someone asks
for an explaination even if the answer is as "obvious" as this one …
(If I would want to invoke the ultimate weapon to make a point, I would
casually drop the word "diversity" now, but that is a bit over the top)
Best regards
David Kalnischkies (again breaking)
P.S.: Wanna play more? Split your party into two groups and discuss
why the introduction of DMs via GR is overruling DAMs denial of accepting
new Developers not satisfying their laws and DMs are therefore Developers
by constitution, just not DDs.
(Further blow it by declaring the GR invalid as it forbids DMs to vote
even if they should be allowed to vote … if that is your game-stanza.)
Mail a complete transcript to d-curiosa to have a GR on who wins.
Reply to: