Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit : > Lucas Nussbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On 22/10/08 at 22:51 +0000, Clint Adams wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:10:29AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: >>>> This was initially written by me, then discussed within DAM (so take >>>> us two for we) and then discussed with DSA, FTPMaster, >>>> Keyring-Maint, Secretary, FrontDesk and the DPL. >>> I am disappointed in all of these people. >> He wrote "discussed", this doesn't mean that all of them agreed fully on >> this proposal^Hdecision. It would be interesting to have the point of >> view of each of those groups. > > You all know I'm lazy, so I'll just repeat myself:
If I understand correctly, that is the answer you sent to Joerg, right? > | > (A small T&S basically, the most important T&S questions for them.) > | This seems excessive. The point of DM was to kill off all the > | bureaucracy and allow people in when they were able to convince a DD of > | their skills. Adding a (small) NM process makes DM completely useless, I > | think. > > [...] > > | Anyway, I've thought about this some more. At the moment, your proposal > | seems to have three goals: > | (i) Allow non-developer contributors to become project members. > | (ii) Get rid of the horrible hack that DM is and replace it with > | something closer to NM. > [... stuff that was removed from the proposal and is now irrelevant ...] > > | (i) IMO needs a change to the constitution, as said before. This should > | be a no-brainer, someone needs to prepare the changes, send it to -vote, > | then kick the secretary to do the CfV. This should go through without > | much discussion (draft title: "Constitutional Amendment: Allow > | non-developer members"). > | > | (ii) is the messy part. Formally, doing it by declamation from > | DAM/ftp-team is iffy, as it gets rid of a process that was endorsed by > | the developer body in a GR last year. > | The other problem with your proposal is that you make it harder to > | contribute as package maintainer. Heck, making that easier was the whole > | point of DM, reverting that change and replacing DM by Debian's NM > | process five years ago (and that's basically what you are suggesting - > | T&S has grown excessively, a small subset of today's questions is what > | people needed to do 5 years ago). > | The fact that the NM committee (and not some random DD) does the package > | check before allowing DM uploads should be enough. That's actually > | what I had in mind when I proposed something like DM 2 years ago - which > | was fine with you back then. > How long has it been discussed? I am really surprised that your comments still fully apply to the current "proposal" (it looks like a policy), so basically your comments havn't been addressed. Really strange for a mail using "we" to represent numerous teams/persons, including you as a member of the Front Desk. -- .''`. Aurelien Jarno | GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73 : :' : Debian developer | Electrical Engineer `. `' [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] `- people.debian.org/~aurel32 | www.aurel32.net -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]