Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[MJ Ray]

"cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The 'Maintainer' in NM is a misnomer, I understand it is possible to go 
> through NM as a translator or documentation writer.

I also had replies from Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt and Eddy Petrişor
saying similar things. The first two paragraphs of the NM Corner
seem to stress that only maintainers need be developers, then
there's an explanation that developers can upload anything so
we need to verify technical skills, before the intro finishes
by suggesting sponsorship.

Looking in more detail, Step 4: Tasks and Skills does say that
other contributions are possible, but suggests that these are
special cases needing extra agreement from FrontDesk and DAM.

I reviewed the last year of "New Maintainers" reports and found
7+2+2+1+1+5+1+4+2+11 = 36 new maintainers, but only one seemed
clearly a translator/writer and there were four that I'm not
sure about (package teams make it hard to tell sometimes).

We've thoroughly queered the pitch now, but how many translators
or documenters believed they could go through NM?

(There are the other general concerns about NM too, such as
an average of 200 days waiting for DAM at present.)

> So maybe what we need to do is to rename NM to NC (new contributor) with 
> subpages detailing the differnet T&S for the different classes of 
> contributors.

How about calling it New Developer if that's what it should be?

Thanks,
-- 
MJR/slef
Laux nur mia opinio: vidu http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Bv sekvu http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[Benj. Mako Hill]

> How is "making long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to
> Debian" _not_ "engaging in development"?

If you think that Debian's long-time pro-bono legal counsel is
engaging in development, I think we're just getting bogged down in
semantics. I'm saying we should be able to take significant and
sustained non-technical contributions.

Regards,
Mako

-- 
Benjamin Mako Hill
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mako.cc/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: help

[Paul Johnson]

On Wednesday 05 April 2006 10:59, Fred wrote:
> I am a very new newbie. I am pretty versed with windows OS, but I am
> looking to learn linux.
>
> I installed debian, the install went fine, but I can not get into the
> x-windows. I am still stuck in the DOS portion.

There is no DOS portion in Linux.

> I am not understanding the boot process. The system boots, go through it's
> thing, I logged in using my log in name and password. It tells me I
> successfully logged in but I am still like at a DOS prompt with the $
> symbol X-windows dose not start. I cant get past this portion to start to
> play with the Debian OS.
>
> What is : $

That's a bash prompt, not a DOS prompt.  That would be the character it uses 
to indicate you're logged in as a normal user (it would be # if you were 
superuser).

If you were expecting X (aka X Window System, never X Windows) running KDE, 
then you'll want to type su at that prompt, type in your root password when 
it says Password: and then type apt-get install x-window-system kde at the # 
prompt.

-- 
Paul Johnson
Email and IM (XMPP & Google Talk): [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jabber: Because it's time to move forward  http://ursine.ca/Ursine:Jabber


pgpMb8dlvkXlD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: help

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

This is not the appropriate mailing list for help requests. Please try
directing further questions to debian-user@lists.debian.org For other
ways of getting help please have a look at
http://www.debian.org/support, where you can find pointers to
newsgroups, forums, and irc channels.

Now, regarding your problem. As far as I can tell from your email, you
either have not installed some window manager or desktop environment
(like Gnome or KDE) which is available with Debian, or simply have not
started them. To check if the problem is the second just try to execute
the "startx" command at the "$" prompt.

By the way, the "$" sign is indeed the "prompt", a character that
denotes that the system is waiting for some textual command from you.

Hope this helps.
Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy
[EMAIL PROTECTED],debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity
of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

help

[Fred]

I am a very new newbie. I am pretty versed with windows OS, but I am looking to learn linux. 
 
I installed debian, the install went fine, but I can not get into the x-windows. I am still stuck in the DOS portion.
 
I am not understanding the boot process. The system boots, go through it's thing, I logged in using my log in name and password. It tells me I successfully logged in but I am still like at a DOS prompt with the $ symbol. X-windows dose not start. I cant get past this portion to start to play with the Debian OS. 
 
What is : $
 
Please help.
 


















Mit Freundlichen Gruben,
Fredmiester

Re: what are developers ?

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 5 Apr 2006, JC Helary outgrape:

> Obviously, not all managing contributors would need full access
> rights to _all_ (or any of) the servers. So in the end we'd still
> have a "super-class" of contributors who are entitled to upload
> access but the uploaders would share the political burden with
> people who contribute in different ways.

Umm, no. If you can't trust people not to abuse the rights
 they have in Debian, you definitely do not want them to influence
 decisions taken by the project.

Technically, any DD can wreak havoc by uploading trojans,
 hijacking packages, and various and sundry mayhem. We just trust them
 not to (with a big stick after any infractions).

manoj
-- 
Marriage, n.: The evil aye.
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 07:27:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > [...] and b) there is no clear-cut and
> > objective criteria currently to identify those people who do make
> > regular contributions without being a developer.
> 
> Unless something has changed since I last looked, the NM process
> was hardly clear-cut or objective either.

No, but signing uploads is.

> > Put differently, here are a number of questions you should answer for
> > this to have merit:
> > * What should a non-DD contributor be doing before we consider him/her
> >   eligible to vote?
> 
> Making a worthwhile contribution to the project. Interestingly,
> self-censorship by non-members allows projects such as Indymedia
> to function with much weaker membership qualification than debian.

There's a major difference between a Bad Guy(TM) intruding Indymedia and
doing all kinds of bad things, and a Bad Guy(TM) intruding Debian and
doing all kinds of bad things. At least in my opinion, there is; YMMV.

> > * How should we link their key to their identity, so that we *know* a
> >   given key belongs to some non-DD contributor? For DDs, we know because
> >   we've seen their uploads. For contributors, we don't see their
> >   uploads, so we can only know through key signing, which is a weaker
> >   criterion (unless they sign their contributions with their GPG key).
> 
> We should see submissions by contributors and those could be signed.

How would you suggest to implement that?

> > * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to vote on just about anything?
> >   If not, what types of votes should they be allowed to vote on, and
> >   what types of votes should they not be allowed to vote on? Make this a
> >   clear rule, so that you can apply it to any possible and impossible
> >   thing we might have an idea about voting on.
> 
> - Appoint or recall the Project Leader.
> - Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate.
> - Override any decision by the Technical Committee.

I have no real objection to the above.

> - Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and
>   statements.

I do have a problem with this one. As part of NM, you formally agree to
uphold the Social Contract and the DFSG. This is what gives us a common
philosophical ground.

Therefore, I don't think we want people to co-decide what our
philosophical position is regarding some practical subject if they
haven't gone through NM. Even if, by the fact that they contribute, it
can logically be deduced that they probably do agree with our
philosophical position.

> I exclude the power to amend the constitution, which they've agreed to
> even less than developers. All of the others affect the work done by
> contributors in some way, so I think there's an argument for giving
> them a voice. Maybe one or more of the above should be subdivided, but
> I'm not sure.

The power to amend the constitution would also affect their work; so I
don't think that should be an argument.

> > * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to propose General Resolutions?
> 
> Only ones that they can vote on.

Yeah, that'd make sense.

> > * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to nominate themselves as DPL?
> 
> No, it should require a number of seconds.

Even then, personally I'm not convinced.

[...]
-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:45:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 3 Apr 2006, Wouter Verhelst outgrape:
> 
> > I don't have any problems per se with non-DD contributors being
> > allowed to vote on matters of purely technical substance.
> 
> I have a problem with _anyone_ voting on a matter of purely
>  technical substance.

I was referring to Constitution points 4.1.3 and 4.1.4. Most votes that
would fall under those would seem to be technical to me. Of course, that
doesn't mean they _have_ to be technical.

Additionally, with 'technical' I also meant "things that relate to
technicalities in the Project's organization", which is not necessarily
the same thing as "technical stuff relating to computers". Though I
should've been more careful in my choice of words on a forum of highly
technical people ;-)

-- 
Fun will now commence
  -- Seven Of Nine, "Ashes to Ashes", stardate 53679.4


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[JC Helary]

On 2006/04/05, at 21:53, Frans Pop wrote:


On Wednesday 05 April 2006 14:27, JC Helary wrote:

Besides, the systematic use of "developer" is also confusing and to
clarify things should be replaced my "member" as is also hinted in
the same document.


You cannot change the word "developer" to "member" without changing  
the

Debian Constitution [1] ...

[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution



Well then there is a problem since the glossary in:
http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint#Member

says:


Member, Developer:
A Debian Project member, who has gone through the New Maintainer  
process and had their application accepted.


So obviously, members are developers and developers are members.

Also in the constitution there is clear reference to  
developers=project members in 5.1.2



2. Lend authority to other Developers.

The Project Leader may make statements of support for points of  
view or for other members of the project, when asked or otherwise;


Problem is, the systematic use of "developer" supports an exclusive  
maintainer->developer->voter frame of mind when the use of  
contributor->member->voter would have a totally different impact.


Obviously it is not a procedural modification that is at stake here,  
but a linguistic one (and we are back on topic).


The constitution does not need to be changed since it already  
acknowledge implicitly that project member and developer are  
equivalent terms.


What needs to be modified is the "Debian New Maintainers' Corner", to  
provide an unambiguous wording as to what kind of contribution and  
what kind of process are required by a contributor to apply for  
project membership.


Jean-Christophe Helary


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 05 April 2006 14:27, JC Helary wrote:
> Besides, the systematic use of "developer" is also confusing and to
> clarify things should be replaced my "member" as is also hinted in
> the same document.

You cannot change the word "developer" to "member" without changing the 
Debian Constitution [1] ...

[1] http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution


pgp2SuxDICVXJ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[JC Helary]

On 2006/04/05, at 20:53, Frans Pop wrote:


On Wednesday 05 April 2006 13:14, JC Helary wrote:

I am not sure what point you are trying to make ?


The point I'm trying to make is that it seems like translators are  
waiting
for the mountain to come to them (change procedures, make entry  
easier).

It does not work like that: you have to go to the mountain.


There is no need to change any procedure. Only to clarify the wording of
http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint

So that the text does not unnecessarily discriminate between  
maintaining packages and contributing in other forms.


Such non-discrimination is hinted in the text itself and in the  
application steps. It is only that the document is not worded in a  
way that present the necessary information the right way.


Besides, the systematic use of "developer" is also confusing and to  
clarify things should be replaced my "member" as is also hinted in  
the same document.


I have no doubt that a rewording of the document would clarify a lot  
of (non) issues and help members as well as other contributors to see  
what the structure of the project really is.



What I mean is that as there are currently no pure "translation DDs",
there is no need to differentiate between "rights". It would only
_potentially_ become a problem when there are more than a few people
accepted as DD who do not have formally proven skills in packaging.


Considering the above status, I don't see how having pure translators  
or pure documentation writers could be considered a "problem".


People who need upload rights because their contribution pattern  
requires upload right must have upload rights when deemed responsible  
enough.


People who have no need for upload rights _and_ who never intend to  
do anything related to packaging should not be discrinated against  
and should not be given upload rights since their contribution  
pattern does not require so.


There are provisions for different skill tests and from that should  
follow different access to different tools.


Jean-Christophe Helary


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 05 April 2006 13:14, JC Helary wrote:
> I am not sure what point you are trying to make ?

The point I'm trying to make is that it seems like translators are waiting 
for the mountain to come to them (change procedures, make entry easier). 
It does not work like that: you have to go to the mountain.

> About the specific item you mention above (develop a strategy to
> "deal" with translators), I think that is _specifically_ what non
> package maintaining contributors want: to be "dealt" with.

What I mean is that as there are currently no pure "translation DDs", 
there is no need to differentiate between "rights". It would only 
_potentially_ become a problem when there are more than a few people 
accepted as DD who do not have formally proven skills in packaging.

As always, it is much more likely that some kind of "rights" split will be 
made when and if it becomes necessary, than that procedures and 
infrastructure are changed beforehand.

Personally I now make quite heavy use of my upload "rights", not only for 
the installer but also for occasional NMUs for other packages. Of course 
I'm very careful that I double check the changes I make and I'm a long 
way from being confident enough to start a package from scratch.
One part of the DD process is to check if people are responsible, aware of 
their own limitations and willing and able to check documentation or ask 
for help when they reach those limits in their work.

Once you are a DD, your commitment to the project will probably make sure 
you don't abuse the infrastructure and there probably will be no real 
need to differentiate between how people became a DD.
Also, even "real packagers" foul up sometimes...

Conclusion: there is no need to "deal" with anything; translators that 
want to become DD should just apply. If during or after their NM process 
it is discovered that adaptations are needed, it will happen 
automatically (especially if "translation DDs" themselves become involved 
in the NM process as AMs for other translators).


pgpj9XWxCsBEw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[JC Helary]

On 2006/04/05, at 20:02, Frans Pop wrote:


On Wednesday 05 April 2006 11:44, JC Helary wrote:

There is a huge confusion between being a developer and having
technical rights, and being a developer and having political rights.


I seriously do wonder why translators, if they really want to get the
developer status, don't get together and just apply for NM. That would
force the project to develop a strategy to deal with it (if there  
really

is something that needs to be dealt with).


I am not sure what point you are trying to make ?

Could you make a short summary ?

About the specific item you mention above (develop a strategy to  
"deal" with translators), I think that is _specifically_ what non  
package maintaining contributors want: to be "dealt" with.


As for the buzz before election times, well, that's what election  
times are for: create buzz. I don't see any problem with that.


Jean-Christophe Helary


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[Frans Pop]

On Wednesday 05 April 2006 11:44, JC Helary wrote:
> There is a huge confusion between being a developer and having
> technical rights, and being a developer and having political rights.

I seriously do wonder why translators, if they really want to get the 
developer status, don't get together and just apply for NM. That would 
force the project to develop a strategy to deal with it (if there really 
is something that needs to be dealt with).

But no, what really happens is that every year or so, there is some mild 
flamewar - coincidentally (?) always around the time of a DPL election - 
about how "things should be better" and "why are we not allowed to vote".
And then things are magically silent again for about 10 months.

In the end my conclusion is that most translators are quite happy with 
their current status. They know their work is appreciated and in general 
they get the support and access rights they need through the huge efforts 
of the i18n coordinators.
The same goes for documentation writers (although there is a distinct lack 
of those) and website maintainers (same; hi Jutta).

How do I dare say this? Simple: I _did_ enter Debian as a translator / 
documentation writer only last year. My NM process was one of the 
shortest in recent history (6 months), partly because the T&S part was 
reduced, partly because I had a lot of support, but mostly through 
showing commitment and jumping in where help was needed.

In short: if you want to be a Developer, stop pussyfooting around, find an 
Advocate, talk things over with him/her and apply! Write a mail to the 
Front Desk to make it clear that you do want to enter the project as a 
translator or documentation writer.
The main thing is to show commitment to the project. What helps a lot is 
being willing to work (and having done work!) on other areas than "just" 
translating your own language.

Be prepared to go into discussion with your Account Manager if you feel 
(s)he is setting too technical tasks. But also be prepared to answer 
quite a few questions about what "suites" are, how packages move from one 
to the other, how the BTS works, etc. After all, you are entering Debian, 
so you should know at least the basics of its infrastructure and how to 
use it (or at least, how not to abuse it).

Debian is a distribution consisting of packages, so naturally its 
organizational focus is on people who create those packages. But if you 
want to get in on another basis, you can get in.
If you don't think it's worth the effort, then just be happy with the 
contribution you already do make and know that it is very much 
appreciated.
If you don't want to learn the basic technical infrastructure of the 
project, than maybe it is better that you are not a "Developer" but 
instead let the i18n coordinators take the responsibility for that.


pgpeVEplj5Hhu.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[Kevin Mark]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Kevin Mark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:36:58PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
> >> Scripsit "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> >> > It's argueably the most important right that is reserved for developers
> >> > but it does not necessary stand to reason that it should be reserved
> >> > only for those who engage in development.
> 
> >> > I'd like to see those who have made long-term, sustained, and
> >> > significant contributions to Debian enfranchised.
> 
> >> How is "making long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to
> >> Debian" _not_ "engaging in development"?
> 
> > just to clarify, does 'engaging in development' equate to 'doing
> > software related stuff' or could it include 'helping to improve the
> > Debian organization in other ways'?
> 
> As far as I'm aware, everything in Debian is software-related stuff in
> that it all exists to enable and support the creation of a free
> operating system.
> 
Hi Henning,
I see 'open source' as a means to create software. I see 'free software'
as a means to create software and a community. Part of that community
involves 'technical support' through ML's, IRC channels, writing DOCS,
HOWTO's, WIKI's, Installfests, Conferences, because these contribute
to Debian continuing to exist and grow. This is one reason why I would
like to see Debian at least poll their opinion even if they never become
enfranchised. 

Also, ML's and IRC are the place users go before or instead of emailing
the program author and complaining, so at least in some way we do help
lessen the maintainers load and do support for his/her app. Obviously
some of us do one email worth and some have done years worth. Also, I
know that I and others always encourage users to submit bug report and
install popcon, again this help debian. Imagine if debian had no ML or
IRC, how would the maintainers deal with 100's of supports request?

I was just reading something about creating a FLOSS project (by Mako)
and thinking that Debian plays a unique role is the floss world. While
most projects are created to 'scratch an itch'. Debian takes on the
additional task of i18n and l10n while most upstream dont need to/want
to/have the resources to. This makes translators an important part of
the Debian community and they contributes to the further adoption of
floss worldwide.

'software-related stuff' sounds ambigous. I'd love to see an
enumerated list of what that represents.
cheers,
Kev
- -- 
|  .''`.  == Debian GNU/Linux == |   my web site:   |
| : :' :  The  Universal | debian.home.pipeline.com |
| `. `'  Operating System| go to counter.li.org and |
|   `-http://www.debian.org/ |be counted! #238656   |
| my keysever: pgp.mit.edu   | my NPO: cfsg.org |
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFEM4cCv8UcC1qRZVMRAsn7AJ0R8oGOuGecncsIxcheBLyXIx/NiwCgjHAv
dcEUXQsEjk+yuCO21dxafYw=
=YeO3
-END PGP SIGNATURE-


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[Eddy Petrişor]

On 4/5/06, MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How can someone who is not a package maintainer become a
> developer, if becoming a developer requires being a maintainer?

Not quite, if you contribue to different areas with your effort, you
can bexom a DD, see NM page.

--
Regards,
EddyP
=
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein

what are developers ? (was Third call for votes...)

[JC Helary]

On 2006/04/05, at 15:27, MJ Ray wrote:

"The Debian New Maintainer process is a series of required
proceedings to become a Debian Developer."
 -- http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint

Or is the above statement false? It seems to disagree with the
constitution section 3.2.1 "Developers are volunteers who agree
to further the aims of the Project insofar as they participate in
it, and who maintain package(s) for the Project or do other work
^^
which the Project Leader's Delegate(s) consider worthwhile"?
 -- http://www.nl.debian.org/devel/constitution


It does not disagree with it.

It just does not say it all.

Many people wish to contribute to Debian, though not all know that  
you don't need to be an official developer to do so. Sponsors can  
integrate work of non-developers and do so on a frequent basis.  
Some ways of contributing (translating, writing documentation and  
reporting bugs) can be done by everyone and don't require developer  
status.

This means that there are 3 kinds of contributors:

1-would be developers (involved in coding)
2-official developers (with upload rights)
3-other people who don't need to be developers to contribute (the rest)

I understand 3- as _technically_ don't need to be developers, since  
developers are defined as:


Every official Debian developer is associated with Debian, [...]  
can log in on most systems that keep Debian running and has upload  
permissions for all packages. Giving this kind of access is  
accompanied by a great deal of trust, as we heavily depend on our  
secure infrastructure.
There is an obvious need for a strict application process to get such  
rights.


But besides for the technical necessity to have such people in the  
project hierarchy, there is no necessity to restrict access to the  
political process to uploaders.


There should be a different contribution structure that includes  
similar distinctions between "supporting contributions" and "managing  
contributions" in other fields:


Generally speaking:
1) people who work under a sponsorship
2) people who sponsor

Each activity could adopt such a structure (and if not could not be  
entitled to participate to the polical process):


translation participant/translation QA resp-sponsor
documentation participant/documentation QA resp-sponsor
test-debugging participant/test-debugging QA resp-sponsor
maintenance participant/maintenance QA resp-sponsor

etc.

Obviously, not all managing contributors would need full access  
rights to _all_ (or any of) the servers. So in the end we'd still  
have a "super-class" of contributors who are entitled to upload  
access but the uploaders would share the political burden with people  
who contribute in different ways.


It's about time one could show the full Vietnamese translation files  
as an answer to the "show me the code" request...


Jean-Christophe Helary


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006

[Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> Now, if there are people like that who are not DD's, the
>>  question we must ask, is wjy are they not DD's?  If they are putting
>>  in the work, and have the same commitment as a DD does, even if they
>>  do not package stuff, why is the project not treating them as first
>>  class members?
> "The Debian New Maintainer process is a series of required
> proceedings to become a Debian Developer."
>  -- http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint
>
> How can someone who is not a package maintainer become a
> developer, if becoming a developer requires being a maintainer?

By maintaining documentation, translations or infrastructure.

Marc
-- 
BOFH #213:
Change your language to Finnish.


pgp3CsNiYlVGT.pgp
Description: PGP signature