=?iso-8859-15?q?J=E9r=F4me_Marant?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> - 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?
Do you realy think it is difficult to get a second signature onto your gpg key? Go to one key-signing party and you get 10 even on a small one. It might be difficult to get a DD signature for geographical reasons but any signature is pretty simple. And, given how tight the web of trust is, a random signature is probably no more than 2-4 hops away from a DD. >> - 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. That should be a "traceable action" through the changelogs. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]