Bas Wijnen wrote: > On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 11:29:53PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> > Debian Contributor >> > ------------------ >> Basically, they need to pass the ID check, agree to the Social >> Contract/DFSG and have successfully answered a set of questions >> similar to the ones used in the current first P&P step, to keep doing >> the same thing they have been doing all this time. > > No. Current Debian Maintainers also need an ID check, agree to > SC/DFSG/DMUP and be advocated. The only thing that is added (and that > was made clear by Joerg), is that they need to answer a very limited set > of questions.
I am talking about the DNDCs here. DNDCs have no priviledge whatsoever besides getting included in a list. >> So this basically requires Debian Maintainers to do the (somewhat >> reduced) P&P and T&S questions, and I don't see the real reason for >> this. The idea behind Debian Maintainers is to maintain a package one >> knows how to maintain. > > Those people are getting upload rights to the archive. Don't you think > it's reasonable that the project wants people to show that they won't > mess things up before giving such a priviledge to them? > > Becoming a Debian Maintainer is supposed to be a light-weight version of > the New Maintainer process. It's not a "I'll skip the New Maintainer > process entirely"-version. If the current Debian Maintainer process is failing for some reason, please elaborate. If it's not, then I don't see why adding more checks is useful. > >> The only reason I can see here is that DDs are not being trusted in >> their advocations, which is a far worse problem that won't get solved >> by this. > > We have over 1000 members. That's way too much to use the "if you have > 1 invitation, you're in"-system. Looking at the recent flamewar, I'm > pretty sure almost every DM has at least one other DM whose advocation > they don't trust. > > So I don't think "one advocation is not enough" is a problem at all. > It's just a result of having many members. Don't forget that this is a > quick thing. People who don't care enough to answer some quick > questions (or show in some other way that they can handle the > responsibility) aren't interested enough to get the priveledge we're > talking about, IMO. Hmm, I see the point. However, remember that the current Debian Maintainer thing is intended for maintainership of few packages. As the original Debian Maintainer process was intended (someone gets a package sponsored, works with the sponsor for a few releases, and then the sponsor is confident the sponsoree won't screw up so flags the DM-Upload-Allowed: yes), I do think "1 invitation, you're in" should work. If it is not working this way, then perhaps it doesn't. But I haven't heard anyone say that yet. > >> > - ensures that the interest in Debian isn't short-term. >> >> Why do people keep thinking this is a good thing? > > If people only have short-term interest, that's not a bad thing in > itself. But in this case we're talking about giving them long-term > priviledges (upload any package; vote; become DPL, that sort of thing). > We want members of our project to have a long-term interest, don't you > agree? Partially, depending on the definition of long-term. I do agree that voting and becoming DPL or other delegation should require long-term interest. But I think that for general upload rights the bar is way lower. As I said in another message, 1 year is enough to do a lot of work, but spending half of that year waiting is not useful, I think. > >> > - enables them to learn more about the workings in Debian and generally >> > helps them for the next step. >> >> They should be doing this on their own, and not force an arbitrary limit on >> them. What if they did this before applying for DC/DM status? > > In the proposal, there is no help during these 6 months. So basically, > if people want to do this on their own, the project will ask them to say > so before doing that (in the proposal). Saying so means applying for DC > status. Applying for DM is not possible before those 6 months are over. > > You seem to want to rush total outsiders into the most priviledged > positions of the project. Why would that be a good thing? What is the > problem of letting people work 6 months with slightly fewer rights? I don't want to rush people into privileged positions. I object arbitrary limits, specially when I think the limit will miss many important cases. > >> While you might not intend that, it still does. DDMs would be DNDMs + >> general upload rights, which is clearly a DNDM < DDM relationship. > ... >> You say there is no first or second class, but DDMs would drop down >> to DNDMs. > > Of course there technically is a full and almost full rights membership. > What I think he means to say, is that DNDMs should not be looked down > upon, and that they do get everything they need from the project. That's why I said "you might not intend that". If they are effectively almost-DDM, there is a large room for looking down. > > Personally, I think a DNDM should have full upload rights as well. After > all, it's well possible that a translator will do an NMU, for example. > Still, I like the idea to give them a different name, because their > general role in the project is different (not less or more, just > different) from DDMs. I agree with this. -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]