Bug#817914: developers-reference: globally change "new maintainer" into "new member"
Hi Holger, On Sat, Jan 26, 2019 at 01:49:09AM +0100, Holger Wansing wrote: > > > -Given how easy it is to become a Debian Maintainer, you might want > > > +Given how easy it is to become a Debian Member, you might want > > > to only sponsor people who plan to join. > > to become a Maintainer? > > Maybe ... > But as a first step, it would be enough to only be a member. it's much easier to become a Debian Maintainer, than a Debian Member. > For team maintained packages you can also do package work | package uploading > work as a member (at least these are my experiences; see below). you can do that work as 'nobody' too ;) > > > -The process of registering as a developer is a process of verifying your > > > +The process of registering as a member is a process of verifying your > > ... a maintainer? > Here we refer to the NM process itself, which is officially named "New Member > process" these days. > So I think "member" is fine here. ok > > (maybe then we also need one paragraph explaining that developers are > > maintainers too? and developers are members, but members not necessarily > > developers nor maintainers? ;) > Yes, but question is, if we want to make it that complicated :-) well, Debian *is* complex. > Remember it should be understandable for new people ... sure, but making it sound simpler / less complex than it is in reality might also be a diservice for new people... > > > -Therefore, we need to verify new maintainers before we can give them > > > accounts > > > +Therefore, we need to verify new members before we can give them accounts > > > on our servers and let them upload packages. > > > > not sure if members can get server access. maintainers surely can. maybe > > "new developers/maintainers"? (also to answer my own question in the > > previous paragraph, maybe be explicit and say > > 'member/developer/maintainer' if we mean that? > > Members have chance to get permission to access dillon :-))) > At least in my case. maintainers too. > I am not a developer, and I am not mentioned as a maintainer in some packages' > control file, so I assume I am a member? ;-)) you are a 'Debian Developer, non-uploading' :) which in other words means you're a Debian (project) Member. > And I got upload permissions for d-i packages, and I got access to dillon. > As it seems the rules are always somewhat flexible ... they are. Your upload permissions are probably technically done by also making you a Debian Maintainer... > > > -Resources for Debian Developers and Debian Maintainers > > > +Resources for Debian Members\ > > see above :) > I assume that all developers and maintainers are also members (in german we > say "kleinster gemeinsamer Nenner"). No, Debian Maintainers are not Debian project members. Project members can vote. Debian Maintainers cannot vote. You can vote. > As written above: maybe we should not make this more complicated as needed > and use 'member' as a cover term? we definitly shouldnt add more meanings to words already loaded with too many meanings :/ > > Even if this seems a bit confusing now I'd hope it was that bad. Have > > you seen anything where you would like to rework your patch or do you > > think it should rather go in as such? > > > > (once it goes in it will trigger translation updates so we better are > > careful...) > > This is why I first thought "Huh it's maybe to late for this change now?", > since translators maybe have only little chance to catch up... I've released dev-ref 3.4.22 yesterday so we can merge this now and then translators have still time to catch up. > But to not postpone this too much I prepared a patch anyway. yup > As a summary: > I see no strict need to do reworking on my patch IMHO. > (You can always find corner cases, where the terms are debatable, because > of historical growth of the document and the rules in Debian, as already > said. But I think it should fit this way.) I think I'll merge your patch later (today?) and then go through it again and reword areas where I think it needs reworking. It's definitly a good base for future work! -- tschüß, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#817914: developers-reference: globally change "new maintainer" into "new member"
Hi, Holger Levsen wrote: > > Therefore, it's of course not possible and also not useful, to substitute > > all "maintainer" into "member" and the like (think about phrases like > > "maintainer script" and "maintainer field in control" and ...), which are > > still correct and will not be renamed into "member script" or "member > > field". > > > > This only as a explanation, why not all occurrences of "maintainer" have > > been switched to "member". > > I totally agree and I also think you've done a few substituion too many, > see below... > > > (Yes, this relativizes the bug title a bit :-) ) > > I hope I got it mostly right. > > in any case: many thanks for your quick response! let's get this settled > now! > > some (quick) comments, stuff I havent commented is fine IMO. > > > -Given how easy it is to become a Debian Maintainer, you might want > > +Given how easy it is to become a Debian Member, you might want > > to only sponsor people who plan to join. > > to become a Maintainer? Maybe ... But as a first step, it would be enough to only be a member. For team maintained packages you can also do package work | package uploading work as a member (at least these are my experiences; see below). > > -The process of registering as a developer is a process of verifying your > > +The process of registering as a member is a process of verifying your > > ... a maintainer? Here we refer to the NM process itself, which is officially named "New Member process" these days. So I think "member" is fine here. > (maybe then we also need one paragraph explaining that developers are > maintainers too? and developers are members, but members not necessarily > developers nor maintainers? ;) Yes, but question is, if we want to make it that complicated :-) Remember it should be understandable for new people ... > > -Therefore, we need to verify new maintainers before we can give them > > accounts > > +Therefore, we need to verify new members before we can give them accounts > > on our servers and let them upload packages. > > not sure if members can get server access. maintainers surely can. maybe > "new developers/maintainers"? (also to answer my own question in the > previous paragraph, maybe be explicit and say > 'member/developer/maintainer' if we mean that? Members have chance to get permission to access dillon :-))) At least in my case. I am not a developer, and I am not mentioned as a maintainer in some packages' control file, so I assume I am a member? ;-)) And I got upload permissions for d-i packages, and I got access to dillon. As it seems the rules are always somewhat flexible ... > > > -Resources for Debian Developers and Debian Maintainers > > +Resources for Debian Members\ > > see above :) I assume that all developers and maintainers are also members (in german we say "kleinster gemeinsamer Nenner"). As written above: maybe we should not make this more complicated as needed and use 'member' as a cover term? > Even if this seems a bit confusing now I'd hope it was that bad. Have > you seen anything where you would like to rework your patch or do you > think it should rather go in as such? > > (once it goes in it will trigger translation updates so we better are > careful...) This is why I first thought "Huh it's maybe to late for this change now?", since translators maybe have only little chance to catch up... But to not postpone this too much I prepared a patch anyway. As a summary: I see no strict need to do reworking on my patch IMHO. (You can always find corner cases, where the terms are debatable, because of historical growth of the document and the rules in Debian, as already said. But I think it should fit this way.) So long Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Finterprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076
Bug#817914: developers-reference: globally change "new maintainer" into "new member"
Moin Holger :) On Fri, Jan 25, 2019 at 11:59:53PM +0100, Holger Wansing wrote: > > yes, a patch to fix this would be awesome! Many thanks in advance! :) > Patch is attached! wow, that was quick! Many thanks for that! > In fact, this member/maintainer/developer naming thing is somewhat tricky, indeed. > and sometimes it's also irritating IMO (at least for people being new to > Debian). for everyone, I guess, to varying degrees... > However, this is because the documents have developed over time, so the > document has probably been written in times where only the developer role > was existing, and later the maintainer role and then the member role has > been introduced. yup > Therefore, it's of course not possible and also not useful, to substitute > all "maintainer" into "member" and the like (think about phrases like > "maintainer script" and "maintainer field in control" and ...), which are > still correct and will not be renamed into "member script" or "member field". > > This only as a explanation, why not all occurrences of "maintainer" have > been switched to "member". I totally agree and I also think you've done a few substituion too many, see below... > (Yes, this relativizes the bug title a bit :-) ) > I hope I got it mostly right. in any case: many thanks for your quick response! let's get this settled now! some (quick) comments, stuff I havent commented is fine IMO. > -Given how easy it is to become a Debian Maintainer, you might want > +Given how easy it is to become a Debian Member, you might want > to only sponsor people who plan to join. to become a Maintainer? > -The process of registering as a developer is a process of verifying your > +The process of registering as a member is a process of verifying your ... a maintainer? (maybe then we also need one paragraph explaining that developers are maintainers too? and developers are members, but members not necessarily developers nor maintainers? ;) > -Therefore, we need to verify new maintainers before we can give them accounts > +Therefore, we need to verify new members before we can give them accounts > on our servers and let them upload packages. not sure if members can get server access. maintainers surely can. maybe "new developers/maintainers"? (also to answer my own question in the previous paragraph, maybe be explicit and say 'member/developer/maintainer' if we mean that? > -Resources for Debian Developers and Debian Maintainers > +Resources for Debian Members\ see above :) Even if this seems a bit confusing now I'd hope it was that bad. Have you seen anything where you would like to rework your patch or do you think it should rather go in as such? (once it goes in it will trigger translation updates so we better are careful...) -- tschüß, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#817914: developers-reference: globally change "new maintainer" into "new member"
Moin, Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi Holger, > > yes, a patch to fix this would be awesome! Many thanks in advance! :) Patch is attached! In fact, this member/maintainer/developer naming thing is somewhat tricky, and sometimes it's also irritating IMO (at least for people being new to Debian). However, this is because the documents have developed over time, so the document has probably been written in times where only the developer role was existing, and later the maintainer role and then the member role has been introduced. Therefore, it's of course not possible and also not useful, to substitute all "maintainer" into "member" and the like (think about phrases like "maintainer script" and "maintainer field in control" and ...), which are still correct and will not be renamed into "member script" or "member field". This only as a explanation, why not all occurrences of "maintainer" have been switched to "member". (Yes, this relativizes the bug title a bit :-) ) I hope I got it mostly right. Regards Holger -- Holger Wansing PGP-Finterprint: 496A C6E8 1442 4B34 8508 3529 59F1 87CA 156E B076 diff --git a/beyond-pkging.dbk b/beyond-pkging.dbk index 5051bef..bead81e 100644 --- a/beyond-pkging.dbk +++ b/beyond-pkging.dbk @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ to learn them? It's also a good idea to know where they stand with respect to Debian: do they agree with Debian's philosophy and do they intend to join Debian? -Given how easy it is to become a Debian Maintainer, you might want +Given how easy it is to become a Debian Member, you might want to only sponsor people who plan to join. That way you know from the start that you won't have to act as a sponsor indefinitely. diff --git a/new-maintainer.dbk b/new-maintainer.dbk index 50392a1..6228dc5 100644 --- a/new-maintainer.dbk +++ b/new-maintainer.dbk @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ %commondata; ]> -Applying to Become a Maintainer +Applying to Become a Member Getting started @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ that list and an experienced developer will volunteer to help. In addition, if you have some packages ready for inclusion in Debian, but are -waiting for your new maintainer application to go through, you might be able +waiting for your new member application to go through, you might be able find a sponsor to upload your package for you. Sponsors are people who are official Debian Developers, and who are willing to criticize and upload your packages for you. Please read the debian-mentors FAQ at -Registering as a Debian developer +Registering as a Debian member Before you decide to register with &debian-formal;, you will need to read all the information available at the New Members Corner. It describes in detail the preparations you have to do before you can register to -become a Debian developer. For example, before you apply, you have to read the +become a Debian member. For example, before you apply, you have to read the Debian Social -Contract. Registering as a developer means that you agree with and +Contract. Registering as a member means that you agree with and pledge to uphold the Debian Social Contract; it is very important that -maintainers are in accord with the essential ideas behind +member are in accord with the essential ideas behind &debian-formal;. Reading the GNU Manifesto would also be a good idea. -The process of registering as a developer is a process of verifying your +The process of registering as a member is a process of verifying your identity and intentions, and checking your technical skills. As the number of people working on &debian-formal; has grown to over &number-of-maintainers; and our systems are used in several very important places, we have to be careful about being compromised. -Therefore, we need to verify new maintainers before we can give them accounts +Therefore, we need to verify new members before we can give them accounts on our servers and let them upload packages. @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ cryptography even for authentication is forbidden then please contact us so we can make special arrangements. -To apply as a new maintainer, you need an existing Debian Developer to support +To apply as a new member, you need an existing Debian Developer to support your application (an advocate). After you have contributed to Debian for a while, and you want to apply to become a registered developer, an existing developer with whom you have worked over the past months @@ -206,14 +206,14 @@ register on our application page. After you have signed up, your advocate has to confirm your application. When your advocate has completed this step you will be assigned an Application Manager who will go with you through the necessary steps of the -New Maintainer process. You can always check your status on the applications status board. For more details, please consult New Members Corner at the Debian web site. Make sure that you are familiar with the necessary steps of -the New Maintainer process b
Bug#817914: developers-reference: globally change "new maintainer" into "new member"
Hi Holger, yes, a patch to fix this would be awesome! Many thanks in advance! :) -- tschüß, Holger --- holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org PGP fingerprint: B8BF 5413 7B09 D35C F026 FE9D 091A B856 069A AA1C signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#817914: developers-reference: globally change "new maintainer" into "new member"
Package: developers-reference Version: 3.4.17 Severity: wishlist Based on the GR https://www.debian.org/vote/2010/vote_002 -- Debian project members -- welcome non-packaging contributors the New Maintainer process has been renamed into New Member process. See https://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint.en.html In the developers-reference, there are several occurrences of "maintainer" in this context, which should be replaced with "member", or maybe "contributor", depending on the context. If you agree with this, I could provide a patch... Holger -- Created with Sylpheed 3.5.0 under D E B I A N L I N U X 8 . 0 " J E S S I E " . Registered Linux User #311290 - https://linuxcounter.net/
