Re: Reforming the NM process
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Luca Capello wrote: > > Well, the wiki page has a "last change" date. The AM (or FD) will > > notice that it's not up-to-date and they can ask you to update it. > > Thank you for the explanation. > > Last questions: > > - is there something like a template for an NM page? Not yet, but we can create one quite easily. It could contain standard sections for the different kind of possible contributions along with some basic explanation of what we expect to have in such a page. > - am I correct if I create my page at w.d.o/LucaCapello? Yes, mine is w.d.o/RaphaelHertzog and many other have pages following the same logic. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
Hello! On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 10:19:41 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Well, the wiki page has a "last change" date. The AM (or FD) will > notice that it's not up-to-date and they can ask you to update it. Thank you for the explanation. Last questions: - is there something like a template for an NM page? - am I correct if I create my page at w.d.o/LucaCapello? Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca pgpEK7MQVT7n4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Reforming the NM process
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Luca Capello wrote: > I fear of the fact that my wiki page will be outdated, while my > involvement in Debian not. Probably it's a specific problem of mine, > as I try to be the most perfectionist I can and... without success. > > Obviously, as soon as the wiki page will be a requirement for an NM or > a DD, I'll put my best in it. Well, the wiki page has a "last change" date. The AM (or FD) will notice that it's not up-to-date and they can ask you to update it. Really it's only important to have it ready when you start the process, and if all goes well the idea is that your process starts immediately because we've gotten rid of the backlog due to our changes. Even if that's not the case, you will notice when you're getting at the top of the waiting list and at that time you could decide to update your wiki page. It's not necessary to be up-to-date always. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
Hello! On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 19:48:36 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Luca Capello wrote: >> I wouldn't measure an NM commitment WRT a wiki page, at least if >> she/he doesn't want to deal mainly with web pages. > > Writing a wiki page is like writing a mail... you can cut & paste > raw text in the wiki page and it will be ok. It's really not a big > requirement... I fear of the fact that my wiki page will be outdated, while my involvement in Debian not. Probably it's a specific problem of mine, as I try to be the most perfectionist I can and... without success. Obviously, as soon as the wiki page will be a requirement for an NM or a DD, I'll put my best in it. > you should be able to manage that if you're going to manage more > complicated things like maintaining a package. I already maintain some packages and I really prefer to work on them than on web pages... > We're not asking you to maintain a debian-dedicated website... :-) I hope so, because my web-programming skills are not my bests ATM ;-) Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca pgpkYWHBqf5x8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Reforming the NM process
Henning Makholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No [expletive deleted] way. Debian is a volunteer organization. This > means that we don't get paid. Lots of the various kinds of work people > do for debian are mind-bogglingly boring - one random thing that comes > to mind is the work Frank Küster is doing on #218105. Singling out > AMing in particular as work worth money would be far out of proportion. Furthermore, I wouldn't take money for that. Nobody would ever pay me for anything sensible any more... Regards, Frank -- Frank Küster Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Zürich Debian Developer (teTeX)
Re: Reforming the NM process
Scripsit "Rudi Cilibrasi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I wonder if the same could be applied to Debian? (note I am not a > NM/DD yet) I think Debian has really taken off as a new nexus for open > source and would expect if it were possible to make a money > contribution to speed up the NM queue many would be up for it. No [expletive deleted] way. Debian is a volunteer organization. This means that we don't get paid. Lots of the various kinds of work people do for debian are mind-bogglingly boring - one random thing that comes to mind is the work Frank Küster is doing on #218105. Singling out AMing in particular as work worth money would be far out of proportion. -- Henning Makholm "Punctuation, is? fun!" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Luca Capello wrote: > > For 2.2, I'd recommend that NM's maintain a page about them on > > wiki.d.org (my current applicant did that, and I found that rather > > useful). In a glance you can see applicants that are not comited > > enough. > > I wouldn't measure an NM commitment WRT a wiki page, at least if > she/he doesn't want to deal mainly with web pages. Writing a wiki page is like writing a mail... you can cut & paste raw text in the wiki page and it will be ok. It's really not a big requirement... you should be able to manage that if you're going to manage more complicated things like maintaining a package. > I stopped putting too much effort in maintaining my website [1], while > I increased the time involved in Debian (or F/LOSS in general). We're not asking you to maintain a debian-dedicated website... :-) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
Hello! As someone in the NM queue... On Tue, 11 Apr 2006 18:59:44 +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > For 2.2, I'd recommend that NM's maintain a page about them on > wiki.d.org (my current applicant did that, and I found that rather > useful). In a glance you can see applicants that are not comited > enough. I wouldn't measure an NM commitment WRT a wiki page, at least if she/he doesn't want to deal mainly with web pages. I stopped putting too much effort in maintaining my website [1], while I increased the time involved in Debian (or F/LOSS in general). Just my 0.02€... Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca [1] http://luca.pca.it pgpnpqudS2Lrn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Reforming the NM process
Sorry, the message was intended for d-p, please do not follow up here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
Dear Marc and fellow Debian friends, Thanks for this cogent and clear summary of the problem as you see it. It reminds me a bit of the problem of scientific peer-review; for-pay journals often ask people to donate their limitted time reviewing other people's work. Although the journal profits, the reviewer does not directly benefit from reviewing, usually. This has always struck me as backwards-incentives. In my opinion, the for-profit journals should compensate skilled and rare scientists for their time when reviewing papers. Everybody knows reviewing other people's papers for the first time is the most boring work. And nobody has enough time yet it's a bottleneck in the whole process. So why not pay for it? So long as the reviewer is respected enough to make a good judgment, it shouldn't be impossible to coordinate some direct compensation to ease the pain if the task is commonly-agreed to be painful. People pay a fee to take most certifying exams for example. I wonder if the same could be applied to Debian? (note I am not a NM/DD yet) I think Debian has really taken off as a new nexus for open source and would expect if it were possible to make a money contribution to speed up the NM queue many would be up for it. After all, many of us have been using Debian for years and we all depend heavily on bug-free and recent software. I think Debian has served as one of the great successes in open-source quality assurance process (along with the Linux and BSD kernels) but there is clearly a problem of too much boring work leading to bottlenecks repeatedly. What if we make an AM salary-pool (open for donations all the time) and pay out once a month say 10% of the total pool in proportion to the number of people "checked"? Then more donations mean bigger incentives for any of the qualified AM's to grab some cash. Maybe there can be a very small number (1-3) of AM-managers that ensure AM checking quality doesn't go downhill or become corrupted as a result and ensures proper credits are given that lead to proportional compensation for those willing to put in the extra hours for AM checking in a major way? We certainly wouldn't want to get a new crop of for-money-only AM's, but this doesn't mean (to me) that we shouldn't consider helping our very rare, necessary and current skillful AM's devote more time to the cause without so much personal sacrifice. We would all benefit from getting the rare good developers sooner into the project I think. I remember a similar system has been used quite successfully for a long time in the RSA factoring challenge [1] to encourage integer factoring research; I myself was one of many people who tried (and failed!) to get a piece of the pie even though it was a relatively small amount of money being offered each quarter. It was simply divided according to a point-based system that made new longer-number breakthroughs worth more. Even though I never got paid I thought it was a fun and effective way of pushing my interest in a possibly dry field. Here is one of the unexpected humor breakthroughs that RSA encouraged.[2] I wonder what kind of knock-on effects we could expect if Debian had a similar system going. Best regards, Rudi 1. http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2094 2. http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c++/browse_frm/thread/a7cc5e74e12fca4d/6bedcbfa8c15b994?lnk=st&q=factoring+rudi&rnum=1&hl=en#6bedcbfa8c15b994
Re: Reforming the NM process
Hello, my comments as someone planning to enter NM during the next couple of month follow. Overall I find your analysis enlightening. I agree with those points I do not discuss here. > 1.2.1 Add more people [Marc argues that this is not a long solution] I disagree here up to a certain point. I think having more people doing the job does help the problem even in the long term. The work is distributed on more shoulders, and people get less frustrated. Let me put it this way: I can imagine working at a conveyer belt for 1 hour a day, but I can't doing it a whole day. However, this assumes that more people are willing to do the job. > 2.1 Multiple advocates > 2.2 Requiring (more) work before applying I totally agree. > 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights Unless you are not planning to have long term "second class developers" (i.e. developers with restricted rights), I don't think it is a good idea. The additional overhead IMO is not worth the effort for a few month. After all the goal of the proposal is that applicatants are not stuck in NM for so long any more. Best regards Ben -- Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to address instead. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reforming the NM process
Steve Langasek wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:40:34PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > >> 2.1 Multiple advocates >> -- >> > > >> Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about >> two). This should get the number of people advocated with a "Errr, >> I met him, he seemed nice" down. At the same time, encourage prospective >> advocates no to advocate too fast. >> Also, two advocates are not a problem for someone who should apply in >> the NM queue - if there is only one project member who's willing to >> advocate you, something is foul anyway. >> > > We discussed this a bit on IRC, and feedback seemed positive, so I'll > comment here as well. I don't think having multiple advocates solves > anything; if the problem is that you have a large pool of people acting as > poor advocates, then requiring them to get *two* bad advocates is only > slightly more challenging than getting one. > > It would be better if we could have clear guidelines for advocates, to cover > the gap between what AMs are expecting of incoming NMs and who advocates are > actually advocating; and if necessary, to disqualify certain DDs from > advocating if they consistently abuse the system by ignoring these > guidelines. > You mean like http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-advocate ? It's sparse, but after you give your name to be an advocate, there's an email questionnaire that asks about the applicants and should let an advocate know if the candidate is qualified or not. Cheers, Benjamin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Reforming the NM process
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:40:34PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote: > 2.1 Multiple advocates > -- > Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about > two). This should get the number of people advocated with a "Errr, > I met him, he seemed nice" down. At the same time, encourage prospective > advocates no to advocate too fast. > Also, two advocates are not a problem for someone who should apply in > the NM queue - if there is only one project member who's willing to > advocate you, something is foul anyway. We discussed this a bit on IRC, and feedback seemed positive, so I'll comment here as well. I don't think having multiple advocates solves anything; if the problem is that you have a large pool of people acting as poor advocates, then requiring them to get *two* bad advocates is only slightly more challenging than getting one. It would be better if we could have clear guidelines for advocates, to cover the gap between what AMs are expecting of incoming NMs and who advocates are actually advocating; and if necessary, to disqualify certain DDs from advocating if they consistently abuse the system by ignoring these guidelines. Cheers, -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reforming the NM process
Le Mar 11 Avril 2006 18:40, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit : > I'd like to implement the proposals I made in (2.1) and (2.2) as fast > as possible, especially applying the rules in (2.2) to people already > in the queue waiting for an AM. I agree both points are a good thing, and should be implemented. Those two ideas (asking for more advocates, asking the applicants to show their work) have been proposed many times in the past, and will be efficient, since it will reduce incoming appliances. For 2.2, I'd recommend that NM's maintain a page about them on wiki.d.org (my current applicant did that, and I found that rather useful). In a glance you can see applicants that are not comited enough. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O[EMAIL PROTECTED] OOOhttp://www.madism.org pgpr43lOUqu3g.pgp Description: PGP signature
