On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Bastian Venthur wrote: > Sorry, but why don't we improve our New Maintainer (NM) process > instead of adding yet another layer of bureaucracy?
This is an attempt to improve the NM process, actually. [The goal of the NM process is to get people in a position so that they are capable of contributing to Debian.] > Why don't we just grant NMs the same rights as you proposed for the > new Debian Maintainer (DM) class after they have been advocated (or > after T&S)? This process would allow that to happen. If the AM felt that an applicant was ready at the T&S stage, they'd advocate them at that point. It merely adds an additional method, whereby other people could advocate the developer outside of the NM process. It's not clear at all to me that an additional method is adding another layer of bureaucracy; it's very much the opposite, since it reduces the amount of tracking and verification of applicants that has to be done. > So, why such a complicated GR introducing second class DDs? The very fact that there is dissension is why the GR has been proposed; it could of course be done by fiat by ftpmaster, but getting DDs to agree to the process and comment on it is a healthy way forward. Don Armstrong -- For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing continued to happen. -- Douglas Adams http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
