Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Wouter Verhelst wrote: >That's a good > thing for everyone; and it also explains why occasionally the NM > frontdesk will waive this policy for people who are 'obviously' ready to > become a Debian Developer *now* rather than in six months: if the goal > is to weed out the people who are not yet ready, then if someone *is* > ready, it doesn't make sense anymore, so it's waived. Oh, "six months as a package maintainer" certainly sounds like a good requirement in that spirit to me. And if the applicant is interested, becoming a DM can be a way to make those six months less painful. Given two otherwise equal candidates, one who had been a DM and another who had been a maintainer with sponsor for six months, I don't think that information makes the DM seem more qualified. Luckily the NM frontdesk tends to be reasonable about this in practice, as you've mentioned. Thanks for explaining, Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130318191148.GA4548@elie.Belkin
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Moray Allan > On 2013-03-18 12:45, Charles Plessy wrote: > > Perhaps the candidates can comment on the fact that this already been > > raised > > last year > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00716.html > > I didn't see this subthread at the time. > > From reading it, I can't understand why no one who took the time to > read it and reply took the time to fix the wiki. Well, most email clients are pretty user-friendly but the wiki is not very user-friendly. It claims every page is an "Immutable Page" and I though you can find me forgetting more than once that it changes if one logs in - which isn't mentioned on http://wiki.debian.org/HelpContents And I've not fixed that second page because apparently the login details I have stored locally were not correct because apparently all user passwords were reset and when I just tried to recover it, I got told "Your token is invalid!" in nice friendly(!) red text with a big red X. I'm now asking debian-www and will keep moving it up, but surely most people just go and do something more fun instead when they get given a big red X? So, I feel if someone doesn't understand why people point out the wiki's bloopers without fixing them, they're not empathising with users. Even for stale old webwarts like me, the debian wiki feels pretty strange and a bit hostile. I wish I had the spare time to improve it, but there's so much else to do first (after all, why run for DPL rather than improve the wiki more? ;-) ) Hope that informs, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1uhfcf-00021s...@bletchley.towers.org.uk
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
On 2013-03-18 12:45, Charles Plessy wrote: Perhaps the candidates can comment on the fact that this already been raised last year http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00716.html I didn't see this subthread at the time. From reading it, I can't understand why no one who took the time to read it and reply took the time to fix the wiki. I've fixed it now (and tried to improve the page a little), , and if they have something to propose in order to make discussions more productive on debian-devel. In this particular case I don't think the discussion belonged on -devel at all, it should have been on -project. More generally: I will make some comments about discussion productivity when I reply to zack's post about choosing an init system later. -- Moray -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b4d52aff392393f4d3c28779dd64f...@www.morayallan.com
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Hi, On 18/03/13 at 18:45 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 09:56:16AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > Also, the wiki has pages for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper > > > but also for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianProjectMember that says: > > > "Debian Developers are Debian Project Member with uploading rights" > > > > As observed in the past, the Debian Constitution treats "members of the > > project" and "Debian Developers" as synonyms. So, no matter DAM/FD > > opinion, the claims on those wiki are not correct and should be amended. > > Thanks for pointing this out. > > Hi, > > Perhaps the candidates can comment on the fact that this already been raised > last year, and if they have something to propose in order to make discussions > more productive on debian-devel. One thing I have done on several occasions in to make summaries of large threads. However, I'm not sure that it would have helped in this case. In that case, I think that it just needed someone to fix the wiki pages, since it seems from the discussion that there was agreement on what needed fixing. And if people disagree, it can still be reverted. My "patch" would be: 1. move some useful content from DebianProjectMember to DebianDeveloper 2. update DebianDeveloper to mention non-uploading DDs 3. remove DebianProjectMember 4. redirect DebianProjectMember to DebianDeveloper 5. drop all references to DebianProjectMember I will "implement" it at a less busy time for me if nobody beats me to it. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130318124750.gb26...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Hi Jonathan, On 18-03-13 08:49, Jonathan Nieder wrote: [...DM status before entering NM...] > I do not even agree that it is useful as a stepping stone. > > DM privileges recognize that a contributor should not have to wait on > a DD to apply improvements within a specific domain where the DM has > shown she can be trusted. This can be a good way for a new > contributor to become useful to the project and to make daily > maintenance less painful while waiting for recognition as a DD, sure. > > With the specific goal of preparing to be a Debian Developer as > quickly as possible in mind, though, it mostly hurts: [...] > The DM process is an excellent answer to new contributors asking the > question "Why must I wait so long for my improvements to be > incorporated in Debian?" On the other hand, I think it is a bad > answer to "I want to be a Debian Developer. What is the first step?" Perhaps it would be useful to explain *why* I think it is a good idea. For full disclosure: I have been an AM off and on for a few years now, and was at one time also a member of the NM frontdesk. It is an unfortunate fact that there are occasionally people who apply to NM when they are not yet ready to do so. This may be because they underestimate what would be required, or because they overestimate their own abilities, or because their advocate overestimates their abilities, or because of any number of other reasons. When this happens, the result will be that the NM process of the person in question will take more time than is the case for the average NM process. This is bad for everyone involved: for the applicant (because they have to research a lot when answering the questions, which is boring and Not Fun(tm) in general), for the AM (because rather than looking at the work of the applicant involved for the tasks and skills step, they have to come up with "interesting" exercises and/or ask *more* boring questions), and for everyone in the NM queue after the applicant in question (because if an NM process takes, let's say, two months rather than one, that means everyone else needs to wait a month longer than they would have if the process would've been fast). Before this policy was in effect, the queue was fairly long, which had the unfortunate side effect that some people would apply (and be advocated) before they were ready, in the assumption that by the time it would be their turn, they would have learned more and be ready then. Except that didn't always turn out to be the case, so the result was more people needing more time to finish the NM process, which made the queue even longer, increasing the chance that people would apply before they were ready. There's a loop in there somewhere. This policy therefore exists to ensure that people who apply for DD-ship have, in fact, some expertise in Debian work, which will make sure that the NM process is as quick, easy, and painless as we can make it. It doesn't completely fix the issue of people applying before they're ready; but it does make it somewhat less likely to happen. That's a good thing for everyone; and it also explains why occasionally the NM frontdesk will waive this policy for people who are 'obviously' ready to become a Debian Developer *now* rather than in six months: if the goal is to weed out the people who are not yet ready, then if someone *is* ready, it doesn't make sense anymore, so it's waived. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51470bf9.2060...@uter.be
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Le Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 10:32:09AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : > On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 09:56:16AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > Also, the wiki has pages for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper > > but also for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianProjectMember that says: > > "Debian Developers are Debian Project Member with uploading rights" > > As observed in the past, the Debian Constitution treats "members of the > project" and "Debian Developers" as synonyms. So, no matter DAM/FD > opinion, the claims on those wiki are not correct and should be amended. > Thanks for pointing this out. Hi, Perhaps the candidates can comment on the fact that this already been raised last year, and if they have something to propose in order to make discussions more productive on debian-devel. http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/07/msg00716.html (On my side I am probably guiltly of not insisting for deleting these pages if nobody claims responsibility for what is written in). Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130318094516.ga30...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Jonathan Nieder writes: > Gergely Nagy wrote: >> Wouter Verhelst writes: Arno Töll writes: > > In fact, even the wiki says "Becoming a Debian Developer: You should be > a Debian Maintainer for six months before applying to the Debian New > Member Process" [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of > the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. > [...] >>> Note that, first, the NM frontdesk has always been willing to fast-track >>> someone who is "obviously" skilled (with "obviously" being vague on >>> purpose) and, second, that the DM step is not required for emeritus >>> developers returning to Debian. >> >> This is exactly why I think it is such a bad idea. Because it is too >> easy to make it sound like DM is a stepping stone to becoming a DD. It >> is not. It is *one* of its aspects, a useful one, but in my opinion, far >> from being the most important one. > > I do not even agree that it is useful as a stepping stone. I'll have to disagree, I'm afraid. > DM privileges recognize that a contributor should not have to wait on > a DD to apply improvements within a specific domain where the DM has > shown she can be trusted. This can be a good way for a new > contributor to become useful to the project and to make daily > maintenance less painful while waiting for recognition as a DD, sure. ...therefore, it can be useful as a stepping stone. > With the specific goal of preparing to be a Debian Developer as > quickly as possible in mind, though, it mostly hurts: > > * Becoming a DD means gaining familiarity with how a variety of >procedures affect the entire archive. DM privileges create a >temptation to work only on your own packages and not pay attention >to others'. On the other hand, working on your packages only at first is still useful: you get to learn how to deal with bugreports; getting ported; how your package may affect others (if there's any that depend/build-depend on yours); how other packages and transitions affect you. These are all useful things to learn, and available for DMs too. (Yes, all of these are available opportunities even if one's not a DM, but gets sponsored - but it's very different when you experience these on your own, than when through a sponsor.) > * Becoming a DD means gaining an understanding of how other >developers work and think and how to interact with them. DM >privileges create a possibility of working (and contributing >usefully!) without needing to interact with other people, and >losing an exposure to mentors' styles and insights. Both issues you listed are things that 'may' happen. Some bad things that may happen will not make the entire idea for that domain useless. Every DM-uploaded package had a DD grant the DM permissions for it, every DM has had an advocate - I would expect these people to have a rough idea what the DM wants to achieve: does she want to become a DD eventually? If so, help her. If not, leave her to her packages. DMs should not be left out in the cold, so to say, once they have their status. DM-ship is an opportunity, in a sense. If one does not use the benefits it provides, it will, indeed, not be much of a help in preparing one to become a DD. But it does give you the opportunity to get better prepared. That, in my opinion, makes the status useful as a stepping stone. > The DM process is an excellent answer to new contributors asking the > question "Why must I wait so long for my improvements to be > incorporated in Debian?" On the other hand, I think it is a bad > answer to "I want to be a Debian Developer. What is the first step?" It is a bad answer to the second question, yes. The correct answer is "Start contributing.". Becoming a DM can be one step in that process (though, it will not be start). -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87sj3tawkf@galadriel.madhouse-project.org
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
On Mon, Mar 18, 2013 at 09:56:16AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > Also, the wiki has pages for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper > but also for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianProjectMember that says: > "Debian Developers are Debian Project Member with uploading rights" As observed in the past, the Debian Constitution treats "members of the project" and "Debian Developers" as synonyms. So, no matter DAM/FD opinion, the claims on those wiki are not correct and should be amended. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
On 18/03/13 at 00:20 +0300, Moray Allan wrote: > I am not happy that: > > - People have gone for DM status because it's easier to get, but > then not gone on to become project members, in many more cases than > because they actively don't want to have full rights. Or because the perceived difficulty of going through NM was too high. We need to advertise more that the NM process, for existing contributors, has become a lot less time-consuming. > - People have been told not to become project members but to be > happy with DM status, if they don't strictly need the full technical > rights that currently come with being a member. > > Nor am I happy that, though it's comparatively less of a worry to me > compared to those two: > > - People are regularly told that they should get DM status before > applying for NM. Well, I think that it's reasonable to expect from people involved in packaging that they are already DM when they start the NM process. But as Gergerly said in https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2013/03/msg00192.html, it should be a recommended but optional step, and the 6-month delay should only be mentioned as an example of what is generally expected, not as a requirement. Also, the wiki has pages for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper but also for http://wiki.debian.org/DebianProjectMember that says: "Debian Developers are Debian Project Member with uploading rights" During the discussion on DDs without upload rights[1], an important point was that such DDs should not be second-class project members, and thus should not have a separate name[2] (it was in the original proposal, but an amendment changing that was accepted). This wiki page reintroduces that. [1] http://www.debian.org/vote/2010/vote_002 [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2010/09/msg00054.html DAM / NM FD, is that simply a bug in the wiki pages, or something where you feel that discussion should be reopened? Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130318085616.ga11...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
On 16/03/13 at 22:13 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Hello, > > while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status > in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed > that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it. > > Moray, why did you vote against? Does that still hold or did you change > your mind in between? > > To all, what's your opinion on the DM status? Has it been effective? Hi, A lot has been said in this thread. Moray did a very good summary in https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2013/03/msg00200.html. Regarding my own position: the DM status is a compromise, but I think that it is a good compromise, that has been a success. I like the fact that we can offer an official status to people who contribute to Debian that can be obtained more easily and earlier than the DD status. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130318085622.ga11...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Gergely Nagy wrote: > Wouter Verhelst writes: >>> Arno Töll writes: In fact, even the wiki says "Becoming a Debian Developer: You should be a Debian Maintainer for six months before applying to the Debian New Member Process" [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. [...] >> Note that, first, the NM frontdesk has always been willing to fast-track >> someone who is "obviously" skilled (with "obviously" being vague on >> purpose) and, second, that the DM step is not required for emeritus >> developers returning to Debian. > > This is exactly why I think it is such a bad idea. Because it is too > easy to make it sound like DM is a stepping stone to becoming a DD. It > is not. It is *one* of its aspects, a useful one, but in my opinion, far > from being the most important one. I do not even agree that it is useful as a stepping stone. DM privileges recognize that a contributor should not have to wait on a DD to apply improvements within a specific domain where the DM has shown she can be trusted. This can be a good way for a new contributor to become useful to the project and to make daily maintenance less painful while waiting for recognition as a DD, sure. With the specific goal of preparing to be a Debian Developer as quickly as possible in mind, though, it mostly hurts: * Becoming a DD means gaining familiarity with how a variety of procedures affect the entire archive. DM privileges create a temptation to work only on your own packages and not pay attention to others'. * Becoming a DD means gaining an understanding of how other developers work and think and how to interact with them. DM privileges create a possibility of working (and contributing usefully!) without needing to interact with other people, and losing an exposure to mentors' styles and insights. (In packaging teams like the perl team, DM status means something different. It is purely good there. :)) The DM process is an excellent answer to new contributors asking the question "Why must I wait so long for my improvements to be incorporated in Debian?" On the other hand, I think it is a bad answer to "I want to be a Debian Developer. What is the first step?" Jonathan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130318074919.GA6059@elie.Belkin
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
On 2013-03-17 14:50, Moray Allan wrote: On 2013-03-17 00:13, Raphael Hertzog wrote: while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it. Moray, why did you vote against? I'll follow up to explain this soon, but I need to check a couple of things, in case I'm misremembering details from 2007. Part 2 of the full-disclosure answer: Does that still hold or did you change your mind in between? To all, what's your opinion on the DM status? Has it been effective? I am glad to have all the DMs as Debian contributors, and am happy to have helped a few on their way to DM status. But I still wonder if they should be automatically given project membership if we trust them to have the technical rights of the DM status, or should at least have a very easy fast-track to becoming members, rather than, as too often currently, being discouraged from becoming members. While aj's original proposal https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00074.html left open the possibility that DMs might be allowed to vote, i.e. project members, that's never been taken up (perhaps because one of the arguments used most strongly by the GR proposers was that some people genuinely didn't want DD status). In fact we've moved in the opposite direction. I am not happy that: - People have gone for DM status because it's easier to get, but then not gone on to become project members, in many more cases than because they actively don't want to have full rights. - People have been told not to become project members but to be happy with DM status, if they don't strictly need the full technical rights that currently come with being a member. Nor am I happy that, though it's comparatively less of a worry to me compared to those two: - People are regularly told that they should get DM status before applying for NM. The original GR said, "- Applicants in the n-m queue may choose to apply to be a Debian maintainer while finishing their application or waiting for it to be accepted." (I.e. it was taken for granted that people can enter the membership process first, and become a DM in the interim if that takes a while.) and "- Individuals may apply to the n-m process, and pass through it without becoming a Debian maintainer at any point." (I.e. no one would be forced to become a DM before entering the membership process.) While those statements were guaranteed there only as initial conditions, introducing DM status as a prerequisite for, or instead of, entering the NM process, and telling people to be happy with DM and not become project members, seem much greater changes to me than the original introduction of DM status, and I'm not happy that this seems to have happened without a wide discussion, and in fact with many members being unaware of the changes. -- Moray -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8783a7df368570f7acee8f7636b04...@www.morayallan.com
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
On 2013-03-17 14:50, Moray Allan wrote: On 2013-03-17 00:13, Raphael Hertzog wrote: while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it. Moray, why did you vote against? I'll follow up to explain this soon, but I need to check a couple of things, in case I'm misremembering details from 2007. And here's the first part of the full-disclosure answer, on the historical aspects. I already had a long-standing interest in how we integrate new contributors into Debian. See for example this 2005 talk with Hanna Wallach and Dafydd Harries: Debian New Maintainer Process: History and Aims. DebConf5, Helsinki, July 2005. http://debconf5.debconf.org/comas/general/proposals/39.html http://people.cs.umass.edu/~wallach/talks/new_maintainer.pdf A couple of points from that talk: "What matters? - Appropriate outlook: free software - Sufficient skills" "NM as a citizenship process - Clear route to becoming a full member - NM could focus on bringing people into Debian, rather than keeping them out - Building a feeling of responsibility and commitment to the Debian project as a whole, and to the community" I'm sure you (Raphaël) can remember some of the arguments on each side of the GR, since you were rather a major participant in the discussion https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/threads.html but I'll give a summary below for others reading this. I didn't participate in the GR discussion -- note that it happened during DebConf7 while I was working on local arrangements for the conference! Summary: The point of adding this extra process wasn't clear to everyone e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00062.html But arguments used in favour included: The NM process sets too high a barrier for people who want to maintain one package e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00054.html Getting sponsors is annoying e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00063.html Not everyone wants full DD status e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00050.html or https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00105.html This was a good way to work around problems with the NM process or account creation e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00091.html though others in the "for" camp claimed this wasn't right e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00046.html Arguments against included: This was creating second-class DDs e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00043.html or https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00067.html Adding a new status was overcomplicating things e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00043.html This was just an attempt to work around perceived problems with the NM process or account creation e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00043.html If we wanted to change things, we should just change the NM process e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00058.html If people don't want full DD rights, they're free just not to use them e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00111.html If people genuinely don't want to be associated with us, they shouldn't be part of the project at all e.g. https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/06/msg00090.html If you want to go back further, there was a previous discussion https://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00074.html at that point things were still vague, without a detailed proposal, and therefore the issues were a bit different though. For my actual vote, if I recall correctly: - I just wasn't persuaded that adding another status, rather than modifying something about the NM process, made sense. - I didn't see the sense in allowing people to upload freely (even for single packages), but not making them eligible for membership privileges. - The people proposing the GR saw it as widening access. Due to the above two points, for me, it seemed like narrowing it. I could understand reasons for initially putting *technical* restrictions on new contributors, but if we reached the point of fully trusting someone with a package (and therefore root privileges on every machine where it's installed), and giving them a formal status in Debian, I felt that we should already recognise them as members. Though the GR proposers said that it was for people who would not have otherwise have had any status at all, I was worried that the effect was to shut some formally recognised contributors out of membership. Therefore I was part of the about 38% of people who voted against the GR, see curl -s http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt | grep -v "^1" -- Moray -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Wouter Verhelst writes: > On 17-03-13 02:02, Gergely Nagy wrote: >> Arno Töll writes: >>> In fact, even the wiki says "Becoming a Debian Developer: You should be >>> a Debian Maintainer for six months before applying to the Debian New >>> Member Process" [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of >>> the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. > [...] >> Thank you, for reminding me of that. I haven't looked at that page since >> I re-applied, and almost forgot those words. We really should reconsider >> that paragraph, and preferably kill it with fire (post-wheezy, of >> course). > > As someone who supports that policy (in the general case), can you > elaborate on this? Why do you think it is such a bad thing? > > Note that, first, the NM frontdesk has always been willing to fast-track > someone who is "obviously" skilled (with "obviously" being vague on > purpose) and, second, that the DM step is not required for emeritus > developers returning to Debian. This is exactly why I think it is such a bad idea. Because it is too easy to make it sound like DM is a stepping stone to becoming a DD. It is not. It is *one* of its aspects, a useful one, but in my opinion, far from being the most important one. It can too easily be read as putting more road-blocks in front of people who already know they want to become DDs, and are confident in their abilities. It is too easy to feel discouraged, when you're reading that you should spend half a year as DM, when that really is not your goal. It makes it sound as if the DM status was there to limit new people in what they're allowed to do, as if it was a stepping stone and no more. It can be used as such, but the original intention was not to limit people, but to empower them. The quoted paragraph goes against that spirit. It is great that we can use the DM status as a stepping stone, really. But it sucks if that's what we emphasize most, and it's even worse when we put a time-frame on it, a time-frame of six months. (Too many assumptions hidden in there, for my taste...) In contrast, the DebianMaintainer[1] reads: "It is highly recommended to be a Debian Maintainer before applying to the Debian New Members process to become an official Debian Developer (see the Applicant's Checklist)." [1]: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMaintainer#Introduction I like that much better, because it does not directly say six months (the applicant's checklist does), and I find it much easier to interpret this as an optional step. A recommended, but optional step. If we could rephrase the "6 months" thing too, into something like (in case of the checklist): "...and have been maintaining and uploading packages long enough that both you and your advocates feel ready to take the next step." That would express the intent better, I believe, without invalidating current practice. TL;DR: Putting the emphasis on DM being something that empowers is much more useful than putting the emphasis on DM being a stepping stone. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87620qchoc@galadriel.madhouse-project.org
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
On 2013-03-17 00:13, Raphael Hertzog wrote: while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it. Moray, why did you vote against? I'll follow up to explain this soon, but I need to check a couple of things, in case I'm misremembering details from 2007. But, before that, I wanted to send immediately the more general comments below. If I am elected DPL I will: - Respect (and promote) project positions, even if they differ from what I would personally like. - Act neutrally when required during project discussions (Constitution 5.1.9). (Also note that 3.2.2 and 8.1.2 ban the DPL from making membership decisions.) I certainly do not want to use the DPL position to reopen old decisions. I want the project to be outward-looking and to move forward in the best way, not inward-looking and focused on the past. -- Moray -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/b97e4d7cc537c153e7044c96ede95...@www.morayallan.com
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:37:35AM +0100, Arno Töll wrote: > Thus, the sheer number of DMs is not a really a resilient number per se, > although I agree that the DM status itself is a good procedure. FWIW, a more relevant number is the number of packages in the archive "maintained by DMs," see [1] for the actual number and a more precise definition. No matter whether DMs are "transient" or not, all those packages are packages that currently have a lower barrier for day-to-day maintenance activities by interested people than they would have without DM. (No judgement implied in this sentence, just another, IMHO more relevant, data point.) Cheers. [1]: http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=746 -- Stefano Zacchiroli . . . . . . . z...@upsilon.cc . . . . o . . . o . o Maître de conférences . . . . . http://upsilon.cc/zack . . . o . . . o o Debian Project Leader . . . . . . @zack on identi.ca . . o o o . . . o . « the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club » signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Hi Gergely, On 17-03-13 02:02, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Arno Töll writes: >> In fact, even the wiki says "Becoming a Debian Developer: You should be >> a Debian Maintainer for six months before applying to the Debian New >> Member Process" [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of >> the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. [...] > Thank you, for reminding me of that. I haven't looked at that page since > I re-applied, and almost forgot those words. We really should reconsider > that paragraph, and preferably kill it with fire (post-wheezy, of > course). As someone who supports that policy (in the general case), can you elaborate on this? Why do you think it is such a bad thing? Note that, first, the NM frontdesk has always been willing to fast-track someone who is "obviously" skilled (with "obviously" being vague on purpose) and, second, that the DM step is not required for emeritus developers returning to Debian. -- Copyshops should do vouchers. So that next time some bureaucracy requires you to mail a form in triplicate, you can mail it just once, add a voucher, and save on postage. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51456a21.40...@debian.org
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Arno Töll writes: > On 17.03.2013 00:01, Gergely Nagy wrote: >> We have close to two hundred entries in the debian-maintainers-keyring, >> that's a respectable number, which reaffirms my recentish change of >> heart, that the DM status is a good thing, and while it does not solve >> all problems, it is, nevertheless, a useful thing to have. > > although I'm deliberately ignoring all the good reasons you provided, > JFTR, many people feel obliged to become DM these days before applying > as a DD and even many DDs understand the DM concept as a probation to > test potential NM candidates. > > In fact, even the wiki says "Becoming a Debian Developer: You should be > a Debian Maintainer for six months before applying to the Debian New > Member Process" [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of > the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. > > Thus, the sheer number of DMs is not a really a resilient number per se, > although I agree that the DM status itself is a good procedure. Indeed, the number alone is of little value, it is merely one of the data points. I do wholeheartedly agree with you too. One of the reasons it took me so long to change my opinion on the whole DM status was those few lines from the wiki you quoted. (It delayed my return to Debian by at least half a year - whether that's a good thing or bad is to be decided by my dear readers.) Thank you, for reminding me of that. I haven't looked at that page since I re-applied, and almost forgot those words. We really should reconsider that paragraph, and preferably kill it with fire (post-wheezy, of course). -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87obeidej2@galadriel.madhouse-project.org
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Hi, Just throwing in my $0.02 as one of the ~200 DMs we have... On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Arno Töll wrote: > although I'm deliberately ignoring all the good reasons you provided, > JFTR, many people feel obliged to become DM these days before applying > as a DD and even many DDs understand the DM concept as a probation to > test potential NM candidates. I think it's natural for the DM concept to have evolved into an interim DD position, a stepping stone if you will. It's a great way for DDs to give a certain amount of autonomy to the DMs they wish to sponsor, and an opportunity for candidates to demonstrate their technical skills and trustworthiness. It's also (at least from my perspective) a lot easier and quicker to become a DM first instead of applying directly through the NM process to become a DD, so that's another point in favour of becoming a DM first and then applying to be a DD only when you're sure of your commitment to the project. > In fact, even the wiki says "Becoming a Debian Developer: You should be > a Debian Maintainer for six months before applying to the Debian New > Member Process" [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of > the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. While I wouldn't make DM-ship an absolute requirement of the NM process, I think that it's generally a good idea to encourage contributors to become a DM first. My own experiences with it have been positive, and it's always nice not to have to spam my sponsor DD's mailbox everytime I'd like to upload something (that becomes extremely tedious after a while, especially if one is maintaining a few dozen packages). Regards, Vincent -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CACZd_tB2nAX2bTb1ubVzc7dv_-sL=al8vf6hc3zk+gqcoch...@mail.gmail.com
Re: Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Hi, On 17.03.2013 00:01, Gergely Nagy wrote: > We have close to two hundred entries in the debian-maintainers-keyring, > that's a respectable number, which reaffirms my recentish change of > heart, that the DM status is a good thing, and while it does not solve > all problems, it is, nevertheless, a useful thing to have. although I'm deliberately ignoring all the good reasons you provided, JFTR, many people feel obliged to become DM these days before applying as a DD and even many DDs understand the DM concept as a probation to test potential NM candidates. In fact, even the wiki says "Becoming a Debian Developer: You should be a Debian Maintainer for six months before applying to the Debian New Member Process" [1]. That's somewhat different to the original idea of the DM status and not really a direction we should endorse. Thus, the sheer number of DMs is not a really a resilient number per se, although I agree that the DM status itself is a good procedure. [1] http://wiki.debian.org/DebianDeveloper -- with kind regards, Arno Töll IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Your opinion on Debian Maintainer status
Hello, while reviewing the vote that introduced the Debian Maintainer status in 2007 (http://www.debian.org/vote/2007/vote_003_tally.txt) I noticed that Lucas voted in favor and that Moray voted against it. Moray, why did you vote against? Does that still hold or did you change your mind in between? To all, what's your opinion on the DM status? Has it been effective? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130316211312.ga32...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com
