Jan Dittberner writes: > On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Ludovico Cavedon wrote: > > On 07/02/2010 11:14 PM, Faidon Liambotis wrote: > > >Am I the only one who has trouble -and getting laughed at- whenever I > > >try to explain these to potential contributors? > > > > > >Can we _at least_ rename the NM process to be indicative of what it is? > > > > It also took me some time to figure out correct meaning of the > > terminology. In particular the fact the fact that the "New > > Maintainer" process is *not* the process that leads you to become a > > "Debian Maintainer". > > What is even more confusing is that we have a document called "New > Maintainer's guide" [1] that is not meant to be a guide for new Debian > Maintainers or people in the New Maintainers (NM) process, but for new > Package Maintainers. > > [1] http://www.debian.org/doc/maint-guide/
Fair enough, but renaming "New Maintainer's guide" to "New Package Maintainer's guide" or whatever would be too much of hardly warranted hassle, and I doubt it would thoroughly clean the confusion in terms. I'd rather stress on a distinction based on role names themselves, when correlating roles to documents (it necessary at all), and the following pun would nicely apply, IMO (also assuming the sequence of roles: DM->DD): Debian *Maintainer* -> "New *Maintainer*'s guide" - i.e. New people to Debian, who are likely to be in need some guidance, indeed. Debian *Developer* -> "Debian *Developer*'s Reference" - i.e. they just refer to the docs (they are supposed to know by heart;-) -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201007052309.43213.danc...@spnet.net
