> But demand high quality for what they deliver. Otherwise, send it back.
Well, of course. Peer reviews, but this would say tht some developpers hav more power than others. All developers should be treated as equals, but, some of them should be "team chief" , or something like that... > >>How do we decide who become developer, what will be their > >> responsabilities, their ressources ? > > > >I dunno. How does debian do it? > > I beleive a maintainer per package. See: Well, we could try something like morethan one developper per package. Actually, in Debian, only the packager can change something. If you take a look to the changelog of any of our package, this is not the way it works. This works for debian since they have a lot of developpers. I think we should try something different for here, something more flexible. Maybe, a team of developpers for some category of package ? > I also like their "package adoption" system: > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/ Package adoption is great, but, to orphan a package is not really seen as a good thing by others developpers. > >Maybe some sort of wiki system. That could organize people and tasks, > >and let new people sign up, and see what needs to be done. > > Just like the debian system. I wrote to the cooker list last week > describing a web based package submission system, see: > http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/cooker/2003-01/msg02998.php Well, a wiki may not be the right thing. A lot of people tends to think that a wiki is good, but, few have tried. Of course I have never tried :-) , but I don't think this could be better than a real groupware system. > >How can we do that? > > Q: when can we do that? And who will make it happen... There are a lot > of bright people on the list that can help to make it happen. How do we > first define an architecture for this. > Produce a document first? Right. First a name for the document :-) > PS: Some friends have always argued that the debian way is the only > sustainable way to go. If mdk is going to do it just like debian, why > not fold and move the idea's and effort into making debian a better > distro instead of duplicating the effort? What about doing it the same way than Netbsd and FreeBSD. Debian is ported on a lot of processor, we can focus on a smaller subset. They have goals for each release in term of version of software, we can have more frequent releases, based on time. This is possible, just take a look at the openbsd life cycle, one release each 6 months. If we clone debian, this is useless. But we can try something different. -- Michaël Scherer
