Re: Suggestion: Time limit for NM process
Joe Wreschnig wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-03 at 05:21 +0200, Sven Mueller wrote: Apart from that, a few numbers: Since May 15th, 2005 up until March 27th 2006, 152 people applied as new DDs, but only 60 were approved. Since Jan, 2nd 2006, 36 applied but only 15 (9 of them in the first week) were approved. Currently 59 people are waiting for AM assignment (with at least one waiting longer than 6 months now). There certainly is something wrong with the whole process, given these numbers. Okay, I'll bite: Any company that hires 50% of its applicants is growing damned fast. Certainly faster than is sustainable. Debian has an advantage because we don't pay people, but we do have other costs associated with membership: Account management, bandwidth and CPU resources, time for socialization and education. If 50% of the people applying for NM are getting through, and that's the only information we have, that's a really good ratio IMO. Do you really expect 100% of the people applying for NM to be prepared to be DDs? If you want to convince anyone otherwise, you'll need to give specifically examples of someone who should be in: Someone who has made consistent positive commitments of time and developer effort, but is still waiting at an early stage like AM, or has been blocked by the DAM for an unreasonably long time. (And note that a couple months is not an unreasonably long time.) Note that I'm not defending the current process. I'm just saying, look, only 50% of applicants get in! is not a valid criticism of it either. The problems is that we're not rejecting 50% of our applicants, but they're still in the queue. We have more and more applicants joining the queue, but few becoming developers, and *the rest creating a backlog*. They're still in the application process, not being rejected. Cheers! Benjamin (Who needs to finish his TS) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Suggestion: Time limit for NM process
On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 23:07:37 -0500, Joe Wreschnig [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Debian has an advantage because we don't pay people, but we do have other costs associated with membership: Account management, bandwidth and CPU resources, time for socialization and education. If 50% of the people applying for NM are getting through, and that's the only information we have, that's a really good ratio IMO. Do you really expect 100% of the people applying for NM to be prepared to be DDs? Well, if everyone follows the NM process correctly, then everyone who applies for NM should have already made a contribution to Debian -- significant enough that someone is willing to be their advocate. So I would not be surprised if a larger-than-average number of applicants are prepared to be DDs. -- Hubert Chan - email Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.uhoreg.ca/ PGP/GnuPG key: 1024D/124B61FA (Key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net) Fingerprint: 96C5 012F 5F74 A5F7 1FF7 5291 AF29 C719 124B 61FA -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Suggestion: Time limit for NM process
Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: The problems is that we're not rejecting 50% of our applicants, but they're still in the queue. We have more and more applicants joining the queue, but few becoming developers, and *the rest creating a backlog*. They're still in the application process, not being rejected. Cheers! Benjamin (Who needs to finish his TS) There is another side of the story. I was in the NM process for several months, doing many contributions (esp. for initrd- tools), while my AM was unresponsive and preferred to work on Ubuntu instead. Now I've got a new job and not so much time to work on Debian anymore, even though I am still very interested. I've got a new AM, I completed the questions part, I did some more contributions, and yet the whole procedure got stuck somehow. How comes? Since the old Pet I am in computing. The first Linux kernel I had booted was 0.95c (on a lightning-fast 33 MHz PC, AFAIR). I've got a master in CS, so I would say I am qualified. I am just trying to contribute to Debian, I am not looking for a second job. But currently I feel kept out by a bureaucratic and slow procedure. Regards Harri signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: question about CFLAGS modifiers to ./configure
Thanks for your help, I have the ideas quite much clearer now. It seems that libgnashserver depends on libgnashasobjs, and at the same time libgnashasobjs depends on libgnashserver too, which is something quite wierd. Is there a nice solution for this? I guess the right thing should be to tell upstream to unify the libraries into one, is there any other solution I can handle? Greetings and thanks, Miry --- Bernhard R. Link [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: This looks like the prime example of a error -Wl,-z,syms is there to catch. The library libgnashhashserver needs symbols from the library libgnashhasobjs, but does not link against this library. Without -Wl,-z,syms the linker supposes that this might be callbacks to the main program, and most programs using this lib link properly because they most likely also link against libgnashhasobjs. And if people realize they cannot link against libgnashhashserver without that lib they tend to not realize the error in hashserver but just adding linkining to hashobj (which might be an additional error, as linking against libs you do not need directly is an error, but in the common cases both errors do not show up and it just works so people do not suspect any bad). To fix this try to add something like (untested): libgnashhashserver_la_LIBADD = libgnashhashobjs.la __ LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. http://es.voice.yahoo.com -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RFS: texmaker
Hi, I am looking for a sponsor for texmaker. My files can be found at: http://josephsmidt.googlepages.com/debianpackages http://josephsmidt.googlepages.com/debianpackages Texmaker is a qt LaTeX editor, released under GPL. Homepage: http://www.xm1math.net/texmaker The package is now in Ubuntu Dapper (http://packages.ubuntu.com/dapper/tex/texmaker http://packages.ubuntu.com/dapper/tex/texmaker) I relise there is another ITP from Gauvain Pocentek [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] but I since emailed him and he assured me he only intended to send an RFP just as his subject http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=345662 http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=345662 suggexts. Thanks. http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/[EMAIL PROTECTED] Joseph Smidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: question about CFLAGS modifiers to ./configure
On Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 10:33:21PM +0200, Miriam Ruiz wrote: Thanks for your help, I have the ideas quite much clearer now. It seems that libgnashserver depends on libgnashasobjs, and at the same time libgnashasobjs depends on libgnashserver too, which is something quite wierd. Is there a nice solution for this? I guess the right thing should be to tell upstream to unify the libraries into one, is there any other solution I can handle? Unifying the libs is the only way to do this cleanly, AFAIK. 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
