Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > How about calling it New Developer if that's what it should be? > > Why does it need to be changed? People maintain websites, translations, > documentation, packages - I don't see a reason to change the current > name.
It seems to cause confusion with the Maintainer (with a capital like in NM) control field defined in -policy. If the process applies to people other than those newly appearing in the Maintainer field, rename. It seems better to name it after the target of the process, what they become - a Developer. [about needing special agreement for non-packaging work] > After speaking about writing documentation as way to show your > skills. The problem with other things is that an AM/the FD/the DAM often > can't verify the quality of these contributions, so we need to work out > how to control that. Think of translators, for example - I'd never say > I'm able to say if a translation to french is good, but I know that I > can ask Christian Perrier about that. Stuff like that should be > coordinated, so that no work needs to be done twice. As I understand it, most translations should already be reviewed on the appropriate -l10n list. So, the AM should only need second-language (2L) understanding of the target language in order to verify the process, not the 1L skill to review the translation themselves. -- MJR/slef Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/ Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]