(CC'ing -project as well) Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hi, Hi, Here are few comments/questions. > following the various "Bits from $foo" this is a small mail to summarize > whats up with "the DAMs". [...] > 1. Introduction of the new DAM member > ------------------------------------- > > First a small intro for all the people not knowing me: > I'm a Debian Developer since 16 April 2002, doing work for the New > Maintainers Process[2] since 22 June 2002. Since then I helped a lot > of people through the NM process, helped some to stay out, maintained some > packages and tried to be a bit visible on IRC. > At the end of 2004 I was appointed as a second DAM[3]. This is great! By any chance, do you happen to know you were appointed as a second DAM now while the Debian project (those who have some power within the project) has always refused to appoint other DAMs for years? > That much for the background. I'm now actively working on reducing the > backlog of the DAM-queue and already got around half[4] of it > processed. Looking at the time I needed for it, we can estimate that the > queue-size will be less than 10 somewhere at the beginning of March. (Not a > guarantee or promise, just a thing we try to do). Better later than never! Things have been lagging for months, I still wonder why someone decided to fix it only now rather than when problems become obvious. ... > > 3. DAM-rules > ------------ > > To give the DAM-stage in the process a bit more "openness", we list some > of the usual procedures we follow, that are important for you to know as > an AM/NM. > > - We wont accept[5] applicants who have only one signature on their GPG-key > if that signature is made by the advocate. If it has only a signature > from the advocate at least another one from the web-of-trust is > needed. Not neccessarly a DD to sign the key, any other well-connected > key is sufficient. > Applicants will be put on hold until this is fixed, but it shouldn't > last too long. > This is to avoid theoretical things against us/the applicants, that > they are "faked" by the advocate, by providing one or more other > signatures from different people. I don't get it. Do you have a concrete example that makes this necessary? It seems more and more difficult to become member of Debian, which is after all a volonteer-only project. Why trying to more and more discourage people to contribute? > - Also not accepted are people without traceable actions for > Debian. Examples of this include > - having only one package in the archive, with only one upload, > - packages with dead upstream and no visible changes in Debian either, > - a poor or non-existent handling of their bugs for the package(s). What about translators? Isn't it time to give them a real status? They definitely aren't second-class contributors. [...] -- J閞鬽e Marant http://marant.org