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

[JC Helary]

On 2006/04/06, at 15:27, MJ Ray wrote:


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


I think what matters more than the process itself is what Clytie just  
wrote:


The point is, Frans, since I started this discussion, that we don't  
necessarily want to be DDs.

But I, specifically, want to be able to vote in elections.
Do those two things really need to be the same?
from Clytie (vi-VN, Vietnamese free-software translation team /  
nhóm Việt hóa phần mềm tự do)


I think that is why the hinted "membership" process must be clarified.

Contributors don't _want_ to be developers, but they feel they have a  
right to formally voice their opinion when such times come.


Official membership for decisive and long term contributors must be  
recognized regardless of the nature of the contribution. The fact  
that Debian is a distribution and that packagers are at the "core" of  
things is not relevant since there are plenty of tasks that are  
required to make Debian the succesful distribution it is today.



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


Definitely. If it is a developer's duty to handle that specific  
process then it is about time developers take their responsibilities  
in that regard. It is hard to swallow that developers have such  
exclusive rights if they don't have more consideration for their  
duties toward the community.


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?


New Member ?

Jean-Christophe Helary

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

[Eddy Petrişor]

On 4/6/06, JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about calling it New Developer if that's what it should be?
>
> New Member ?

That would have the advantage (and disadvantage, at the same time) the
the abbreviation stays the same.

Advantage, because of people inertia calling it "NM"
Disadvantage, because the change will not be so evident from the
outside (more of a publicity issue, but that is what a part of the
problem is, so we need to change the image that DD=package maintainer)

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

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

[JC Helary]

On 2006/04/06, at 17:00, Eddy Petrişor wrote:


On 4/6/06, JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

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


New Member ?


That would have the advantage (and disadvantage, at the same time) the
the abbreviation stays the same.


And also the advantage of being consistent with the glossary (where  
Developer=Member) and the constitution (where Developer=Member).


A person who has completed the New Member process obviously becomes a  
Member :) So grammatically it also has the advantage of being clear :)



Disadvantage, because the change will not be so evident from the
outside (more of a publicity issue, but that is what a part of the
problem is, so we need to change the image that DD=package maintainer)


No because, as you'll see in my edits to cobako's proposal, the aim  
is to have people think in terms of "membership" and not in terms of  
"developership". Which will obviously make it easier for long term  
non-maintainer contributors to understand that they are also welcome.  
All this is really a perception problem.


Jean-Christophe Helary

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

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:24:26PM +0900, JC Helary wrote:
> >Disadvantage, because the change will not be so evident from the
> >outside (more of a publicity issue, but that is what a part of the
> >problem is, so we need to change the image that DD=package maintainer)

> No because, as you'll see in my edits to cobako's proposal, the aim  
> is to have people think in terms of "membership" and not in terms of  
> "developership". Which will obviously make it easier for long term  
> non-maintainer contributors to understand that they are also welcome.  
> All this is really a perception problem.

I think the name "member" is worse than "developer" *because* it places the
emphasis on membership (belonging) instead of on developership (doing the
work).  We have no shortage of folks already who "belong" without
contributing much to the project, I don't think this is the model we want to
emphasize.  (We also have plenty of people who contribute heavily to the
project without being recognized as members; but I think that "member" is a
lesser title that doesn't do justice to their contributions -- I want to see
these people recognized as *developers*, not just as members.)

And maybe I'm too heavily steeped in Debian culture to take an objective
view, but I don't see any reason why translators, documentation writers,
artists, et al. should look at the term "developer" and conclude it's not
for them.  Developing an operating system is what we *all* do; not just
packagers or maintainers, but also documentation writers, bug submitters,
buildd maintainers, QA folks, translators, and everyone else.  The term
isn't "software developer" or "programmer", it's simply "developer", which I
think encapsulates the concept of what Debian is, and I wouldn't like to
lose that.  I'd rather see us do a better job of communicating this
principle to prospective developers instead.

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

[MJ Ray]

JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> No because, as you'll see in my edits to cobako's proposal, the aim =20
> is to have people think in terms of "membership" and not in terms of =20
> "developership". Which will obviously make it easier for long term =20
> non-maintainer contributors to understand that they are also welcome. =20=

I think that'd be a step backwards. Those who get to vote should
be contributing to the development (=being developers) of debian
in some way. "Members" only for voting strike me as deadwood.
If we need to make becoming a developer clearer, then let's do
that, rather than introduce a new class of non-developer member.

I remain of the opinion that developer=maintainer is a bug and
developer=member is a feature. All members should help to develop,
in some way, but not necessarily to package or program.

Hope that helps,
-- 
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

[JC Helary]

No because, as you'll see in my edits to cobako's proposal, the aim
is to have people think in terms of "membership" and not in terms of
"developership". Which will obviously make it easier for long term
non-maintainer contributors to understand that they are also welcome.
All this is really a perception problem.


I think the name "member" is worse than "developer" *because* it  
places the
emphasis on membership (belonging) instead of on developership  
(doing the

work).


Well, it is already accepted that Debian Project Members are Debian  
Developers (I put the capital letters for emphasis). That is already  
indicated in the NMP and in the constitution.


Although your point about the _meaning_ of "developing" is valid, you  
seem to forget that Debian is a _software_ context where development  
is usually meant as _coding_.


In the same context, translators are called localizers and _not_  
developers.


We have a perception problem here and sticking to a wording that made  
sense when mostly coders where contributing will not solve anything.


Would you really feel "downgraded" if called "DPM" instead of "DD" ?


We have no shortage of folks already who "belong" without
contributing much to the project, I don't think this is the model  
we want to

emphasize.


Well, obviously they don't "belong" very much if they don't produce  
anything. And I have no doubt some of those "folks" think they are  
"developers" but that does not affect the model either ?



  (We also have plenty of people who contribute heavily to the
project without being recognized as members; but I think that  
"member" is a
lesser title that doesn't do justice to their contributions -- I  
want to see

these people recognized as *developers*, not just as members.)


Right now, if I am not wrong, the whole of the localization process  
is simply not recognized whatever you call it. And I have no doubt a  
big bunch of the people who contribute sincerely to the project would  
never consider starting to NM process because of the emphasis on  
"maintainer" and "developer".


We are not discussing what good looking title give to people who are  
long terms contributors, but how to clarify an already existing  
process so that people who never considered applying, because they  
don't call what they do "development", eventually realize that their  
contribution is just as important as the maintainer's one next door.


If that requires selecting more neutral words then such words should  
be considered.


Besides, Debian is a Project, and in any "project" based lingo one  
usually uses the term "member" to indicate active contributors. Hence  
the emphasis on "Debian _Project_ Member" and not simply "member".



lose that.  I'd rather see us do a better job of communicating this
principle to prospective developers instead.


I think that is fair, and I think that is one part of what is at  
stake in the discussions we are having.


The other part is (and that is what started the thread), if the QA  
process requires a strict selection of the "technicians" that are  
involved in the release, why does the voting process require the same  
thing ?


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

[Kevin Mark]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:30:46AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:24:26PM +0900, JC Helary wrote:
> > >Disadvantage, because the change will not be so evident from the
> > >outside (more of a publicity issue, but that is what a part of the
> > >problem is, so we need to change the image that DD=package maintainer)
> 
> > No because, as you'll see in my edits to cobako's proposal, the aim  
> > is to have people think in terms of "membership" and not in terms of  
> > "developership". Which will obviously make it easier for long term  
> > non-maintainer contributors to understand that they are also welcome.  
> > All this is really a perception problem.
> 
> I think the name "member" is worse than "developer" *because* it places the
> emphasis on membership (belonging) instead of on developership (doing the
> work).  We have no shortage of folks already who "belong" without
> contributing much to the project, I don't think this is the model we want to
  
> emphasize.  (We also have plenty of people who contribute heavily to the
 ^^
> project without being recognized as members; but I think that "member" is a
> lesser title that doesn't do justice to their contributions -- I want to see
^
> these people recognized as *developers*, not just as members.)
> 
> And maybe I'm too heavily steeped in Debian culture to take an objective
> view, but I don't see any reason why translators, documentation writers,
> artists, et al. should look at the term "developer" and conclude it's not
> for them.  Developing an operating system is what we *all* do; not just
> packagers or maintainers, but also documentation writers, bug submitter,
> buildd maintainers, QA folks, translators, and everyone else.  The term
> isn't "software developer" or "programmer", it's simply "developer", which I
> think encapsulates the concept of what Debian is, and I wouldn't like to
> lose that.  I'd rather see us do a better job of communicating this
> principle to prospective developers instead.
Hi Steve,
you and others use the word 'contributing', 'contribute',
'contributions'. So why not 'Debian Contributor'. The legal staff
contribute to Debian, the Artists contribute to Debian, the (non-DD)
package maintainers contribute to Debian, etc. It just seems like an
ingrained word 'Debian developer' and 'DD'. I think 'Debian legal
contributor','Debian translation contributor', 'Debian art contributor',
etc. seem to not have the 'member' association and empathizes
contribution.
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 |


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt]

MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "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.

Before speaking about sponsorship (which some people wanting to maintain
packages as developer still don't know), this sentence clarifies the
issue:

| To ease the process, it is important to already be familiar with Debian,
| so we require that prospective developers have already contributed
| - in the form of translations, documentation, sending patches or
| package maintenance.  

> 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.

After speaking about writing documentation as way to show your
skills. The problem with other things is that an AM/the FD/the DAM often
can't verify the quality of these contributions, so we need to work out
how to control that. Think of translators, for example - I'd never say
I'm able to say if a translation to french is good, but I know that I
can ask Christian Perrier about that. Stuff like that should be
coordinated, so that no work needs to be done twice.

>> 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?

Why does it need to be changed? People maintain websites, translations,
documentation, packages - I don't see a reason to change the current
name.

Marc
-- 
BOFH #324:
Your packets were eaten by the terminator


pgp9Gw8qZYyoz.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[MJ Ray]

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > How about calling it New Developer if that's what it should be?
> 
> Why does it need to be changed? People maintain websites, translations,
> documentation, packages - I don't see a reason to change the current
> name.

It seems to cause confusion with the Maintainer (with a capital
like in NM) control field defined in -policy. If the process
applies to people other than those newly appearing in the
Maintainer field, rename. It seems better to name it after the
target of the process, what they become - a Developer.

[about needing special agreement for non-packaging work]
> After speaking about writing documentation as way to show your
> skills. The problem with other things is that an AM/the FD/the DAM often
> can't verify the quality of these contributions, so we need to work out
> how to control that. Think of translators, for example - I'd never say
> I'm able to say if a translation to french is good, but I know that I
> can ask Christian Perrier about that. Stuff like that should be
> coordinated, so that no work needs to be done twice.

As I understand it, most translations should already be
reviewed on the appropriate -l10n list. So, the AM should only
need second-language (2L) understanding of the target language
in order to verify the process, not the 1L skill to review the
translation themselves.

-- 
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

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 07:19:22AM -0400, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Hi Steve,
> you and others use the word 'contributing', 'contribute',
> 'contributions'. So why not 'Debian Contributor'.

Ghaah.

Because I'm a developer, who develops an operating system, not just
someone who merely 'contributes' to it. Thanks.

What's with all the fuss about "It should be called something better!"?
The name "Debian Developer" is perfectly fine as it is, and there is
_nothing_ wrong with it.

If people don't understand that you don't have to write code to be a
developer, then they should be told. If they are told, and they
misunderstand, then that is a bug which should be fixed. But don't go
around claiming that I'm suddenly not a "developer" anymore -- I happen
to be quite proud of that.

Yes, that's an emotional reaction. No, that's not a bug.

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


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt]

JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>   (We also have plenty of people who contribute heavily to the
>> project without being recognized as members; but I think that
>> "member" is a lesser title that doesn't do justice to their
>> contributions -- I  want to see these people recognized as
>> *developers*, not just as members.) 
> Right now, if I am not wrong, the whole of the localization process  
> is simply not recognized whatever you call it. And I have no doubt a  
> big bunch of the people who contribute sincerely to the project would  
> never consider starting to NM process because of the emphasis on  
> "maintainer" and "developer".

That's total bullshit. If they would really care about joining, they
could simply start to read the documentation, which explicitly shows
them how to understand the term maintainer and/or developer.

And anyway, it's not like people who should consider to join have
nothing to do with Debian and don't know the particularities of its
culture - even if this is unclear to people who are new to Debian, it
should be no problem for an active contributor.

Marc
-- 
Fachbegriffe der Informatik - Einfach erklärt
262: Funktionale Programmierung
   Gestern haben wir Zubereiten am Beispiel von Pizza probiert,
   heute machen wir Würstchen. (Ralf Muschall)


pgpmJlwu1W0yM.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:18:13 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:

> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > How about calling it New Developer if that's what it should be?
> > 
> > Why does it need to be changed? People maintain websites,
> > translations, documentation, packages - I don't see a reason to
> > change the current name.
> 
> It seems to cause confusion with the Maintainer (with a capital
> like in NM) control field defined in -policy. If the process
> applies to people other than those newly appearing in the
> Maintainer field, rename. It seems better to name it after the
> target of the process, what they become - a Developer.

The Maintainer mentioned in a package control field is a Package
Maintainer.

I fail to see why details about maintaining _packages_ should make
us avoid the same term for other maintainance tasks.


 - Jonas

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm


pgpKRe3wflZXv.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[JC Helary]

On 2006/04/06, at 22:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:


If people don't understand that you don't have to write code to be a
developer, then they should be told. If they are told, and they
misunderstand, then that is a bug which should be fixed. But don't go
around claiming that I'm suddenly not a "developer" anymore -- I  
happen

to be quite proud of that.


Nobody's saying that you are going to stop being a developer. You can  
be proud of what you do being a developer. You've earned that status.


But requiring people who are not software developers to understand  
they suddenly have become developers because Debian is special is a  
little far fetched.


The bug is in the relation between "from new maintainer->to  
developer" and the corollary "other contributors don't _need_ to  
become developers".


However true that technically is, it clearly does not contribute to  
the well-being of non-maintainer contributors in the Project.


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

[cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)]

On Thursday 06 April 2006 15:29, JC Helary wrote:
> Nobody's saying that you are going to stop being a developer. You can
> be proud of what you do being a developer. You've earned that status.
>
> But requiring people who are not software developers to understand
> they suddenly have become developers because Debian is special is a
> little far fetched.

> The bug is in the relation between "from new maintainer->to
> developer" and the corollary "other contributors don't _need_ to
> become developers".

I really don't think that the current terminology is gonna be a problem IF 
the NM-page make it clear that the process is open to non-package 
maintainers. 

Now obviously the current current NM-corner doesn't do a good enough job of 
that, which is a reason to work on rewording it so the page does make clear 
that the process _is_ open to non-package-maintainers (something that's 
being worked on elsewhere in this thread)

I think it should be apperant at this point that changing the terminology 
from 'New Maintainer' and 'Debian Developer' to something else is 
controversial enough that we're not likely to generate a consensus on it 
any time soon. So could we please focus on the changes we can get consensus 
on?

Also even if -from an outsiders perspective- the jargon used is quirky and 
strange. I have to wonder:
if one is not even willing to look at the jargon used by the project from 
the projects point of view. Then why on earth would one be applying to 
NM-process in the first place? And how on earth would one expect to pass 
the philosyphy and procedures part of the process?
-- 
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
  
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)


pgpSEgOtNWSZg.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Andreas Barth]

* JC Helary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060406 16:14]:
> However true that technically is, it clearly does not contribute to  
> the well-being of non-maintainer contributors in the Project.

I agree to that statement - but that shouldn't make us replace the nice
term Debian Developer with a not-so-nice term. And, actually, it is not
a real show stopper. So, if someone has a good term, I'm all for using
that term - but until that, DD just works well (and of course, we should
keep the term DD anyways for the package maintainers, it's just a nice
term).


Cheers,
Andi
-- 
  http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/


-- 
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

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 22:29:54 +0900 JC Helary wrote:

> The bug is in the relation between "from new maintainer->to  
> developer" and the corollary "other contributors don't _need_ to  
> become developers".
> 
> However true that technically is, it clearly does not contribute to  
> the well-being of non-maintainer contributors in the Project.

No, the bug is in realizing that a "New Maintainer" does not imply
_package_ maintainance - it is just the most common maintainance task,
and, it seems, the simplest to judge during the NM process.

Contribution is (sometimes) a single action, while maintainance implies
steady commitment.

Lots of people contribute to Debian. I find it sane to draw the line
between those just doing that and those committed to continuously
maintain package/translation/legal/whatever contributions (their own and
those of others).


 - Jonas

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm


pgp2eSXnYGfu6.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[MJ Ray]

Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:18:13 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] It seems better to name it after the
> > target of the process, what they become - a Developer.
> 
> The Maintainer mentioned in a package control field is a Package
> Maintainer.
> 
> I fail to see why details about maintaining _packages_ should make
> us avoid the same term for other maintainance tasks.

Of your last 20 recorded uses of the word "Maintainer" on
debian lists before this thread that I found, you use it once
in another meaning (webmaster) and that was uncapitalised.
I think I recall you using "maintainers and contributors" to
refer to all the maintainers of a package group before, too.
What are the contributors doing if not helping to maintain
the package, in your opinion?

In the debian context, I think Maintainer is commonly
understood as a package maintainer. We have a less confusing
word for a developer ("Developer"), so why not use it?

Hope that helps you see,
-- 
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

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:35:38 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:

> Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 14:18:13 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> > > [...] It seems better to name it after the
> > > target of the process, what they become - a Developer.
> > 
> > The Maintainer mentioned in a package control field is a Package
> > Maintainer.
> > 
> > I fail to see why details about maintaining _packages_ should make
> > us avoid the same term for other maintainance tasks.
> 
> Of your last 20 recorded uses of the word "Maintainer" on
> debian lists before this thread that I found, you use it once
> in another meaning (webmaster) and that was uncapitalised.

Which makes "Maintainer" unsuitble for translation maintainers how,
exactly?


> What are the contributors doing if not helping to maintain
> the package, in your opinion?

I do not talk about "contributors", but several different kinds of
"maintainers".

What eg. Translation Maintainers are doing besides helping maintain
some package is maintaining _consistency_ across packages, and across
pseudo-packages like our website.


> In the debian context, I think Maintainer is commonly
> understood as a package maintainer. We have a less confusing
> word for a developer ("Developer"), so why not use it?

They are both fine words. Why _avoid_ one of them for some uses,
only due to them being less common?


> Hope that helps you see,

Sorry, it didn't. Possibly you are not to blame for that.


 - Jonas

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm


pgpK2Cq6JbsGp.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[JC Helary]

On 2006/04/06, at 22:50, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:


And anyway, it's not like people who should consider to join have
nothing to do with Debian and don't know the particularities of its
culture - even if this is unclear to people who are new to Debian, it
should be no problem for an active contributor.


Did it ever occur to you that one can be an active Debian contributor  
and not use Debian at all ?


Obviously this thread started with somebody who is a very active  
contributor for whom it was unclear.


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

[JC Helary]

On 2006/04/06, at 23:18, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:

Also even if -from an outsiders perspective- the jargon used is  
quirky and

strange. I have to wonder:
if one is not even willing to look at the jargon used by the  
project from

the projects point of view. Then why on earth would one be applying to
NM-process in the first place? And how on earth would one expect to  
pass

the philosyphy and procedures part of the process?


Which is the reason why this whole thread started.

Why is it that active contributors would have to go through all this  
to have a right to vote in the Project Leader's election ?


This is what is questioned by people who contribute.

If you dismiss such claims by saying "they just have to wait for 200  
days after having contributed for so long in the dark" it is not  
going to work.


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

[Wouter Verhelst]

On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:33:05PM +0900, JC Helary wrote:
> 
> On 2006/04/06, at 22:50, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> 
> >And anyway, it's not like people who should consider to join have
> >nothing to do with Debian and don't know the particularities of its
> >culture - even if this is unclear to people who are new to Debian, it
> >should be no problem for an active contributor.
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that one can be an active Debian contributor  
> and not use Debian at all ?

No. And even if it did, I fail to see how that is relevant here. You
cannot be an active Debian contributor without knowing about its
culture, which is what Marc was talking about.

-- 
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 Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 10:29:54PM +0900, JC Helary wrote:
> 
> On 2006/04/06, at 22:21, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> 
> >If people don't understand that you don't have to write code to be a
> >developer, then they should be told. If they are told, and they
> >misunderstand, then that is a bug which should be fixed. But don't go
> >around claiming that I'm suddenly not a "developer" anymore -- I
> >happen to be quite proud of that.
> 
> Nobody's saying that you are going to stop being a developer. You can  
> be proud of what you do being a developer. You've earned that status.
> 
> But requiring people who are not software developers to understand  
> they suddenly have become developers because Debian is special is a  
> little far fetched.

I don't see why.

-- 
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

[MJ Ray]

Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:35:38 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> > Of your last 20 recorded uses of the word "Maintainer" on
> > debian lists before this thread that I found, you use it once
> > in another meaning (webmaster) and that was uncapitalised.
> 
> Which makes "Maintainer" unsuitble for translation maintainers how,
> exactly?

If 95% of the time, people (including you, as described) use 
Maintainer to mean package maintainer, then people will not
read Maintainer and think "...or translator or tech writer..."
in this context. Many people (including me) would not even
think of using Maintainer to refer to a translator.

Yes, you can argue that people are buggy, but what else is 
this language for, if not to communicate well with people?

> > What are the contributors doing if not helping to maintain
> > the package, in your opinion?
> 
> I do not talk about "contributors", but several different kinds of
> "maintainers".

You did write about contributors.

> What eg. Translation Maintainers are doing besides helping maintain
> some package is maintaining _consistency_ across packages, and across
> pseudo-packages like our website.

Isn't it easier and more common to call them translators, not
Translation Maintainers?

> > In the debian context, I think Maintainer is commonly
> > understood as a package maintainer. We have a less confusing
> > word for a developer ("Developer"), so why not use it?
> 
> They are both fine words. Why _avoid_ one of them for some uses,
> only due to them being less common?

That's not the reason. Nice strawman, though.

We should avoid it because it apparently communicates the
wrong thing to many people in this context. There seem to be
willing developers who support debian's aims that we could
attract more easily if we address this bug.

Clear?
-- 
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]

Link exchange

[Peter Cooper]

Dear Webmaster,

We would like to exchange links with your site, http://dmoz.org/.

Name: Open Directory - Sports: Greyhound Racing: Tracks: United States
URL: http://dmoz.org/
Description: Open Directory - Sports: Greyhound Racing: Tracks: United States 


We have already added your site to the category Other > Web Directories on our 
links page at http://www.pokerreviews.biz/directory/ . 

If you are interested in exchanging links, please add our site using these 
details:

Name: online poker
URL: http://www.pokerreviews.biz/
Description: Learn how to play online poker

We will check for the reciprocal link. If we do not find our link on your site 
within the next 15 days, your link will be automatically deleted.

Please let us know once our site is up.

Sincerely,

Peter Cooper
webmaster



-- 
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]

JC Helary <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 2006/04/06, at 22:50, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> And anyway, it's not like people who should consider to join have
>> nothing to do with Debian and don't know the particularities of its
>> culture - even if this is unclear to people who are new to Debian, it
>> should be no problem for an active contributor.
> Did it ever occur to you that one can be an active Debian contributor  
> and not use Debian at all ?

Yes. Still, people who have no idea how Debian works are not wanted as
DD.

Marc
-- 
BOFH #337:
the butane lighter causes the pincushioning


pgpowLeexnH9z.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Benj. Mako Hill]

> Scripsit "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
> > I think that the fact that the upload keyring is the same as the
> > voting keyring is bad. Contributors are told they can't vote until
> > they learn C compiler flags.
> 
> Who tells contributors that nonsense?

Have you read the NM process templates lately? They are what almost
every contributor looking for enfranchisement sees.

Regards,
Mako


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



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Benj. Mako Hill]

> On 4 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill spake thusly:
> 
> > 
> >> The problem is more one of 'how do we identify those people that
> >> aren't a Developer, but that do contribute regularly'.
> >
> > There are a number of ways of doing this although, like NM, it's
> > ultimately a human process that is carried out in the context of
> > guidelines. Ubuntu has separate categories for member and maintainer
> > (only the latter can upload although they are equal in all other
> > respects) and their process involves testimonial, demonstrated work
> > over a long period of time, and review by an elected
> > board. Something similar could work in Debian.
> >
> Ubuntu also gives limited rights to its so called members. Can
>  members throw out the benevolent dictator for life? fire all the
>  members on the committees? overrule the peoject leader? Or any
>  delegate? Propose and with enough numbers, change the very articles
>  of incorporation or other foundation documents?

Ubuntu members get to vote on the members of the community council,
most similar to the Debian project leader. All members get equal votes
in this regard.

Clearly, the role of Mark Shuttleworth is an undemocratic one in
Ubuntu and it's my least favorite things about the project
governance. I would not suggest Debian adopt such a model and I have
publicly expressed uneasiness with it.

> I'd be happy to follow the ubuntu model -- gice every
>  /. reader "full rights", but whittle down their powers so all
>  they can really do is say they are members, and vote on some
>  inconsequential things.

But that's not what happens in Ubuntu. The total rights of Ubuntu
members may be less than the non-technical rights of Debian
developers' but the maintainers in Ubuntu have *zero* extra power over
the non-technical ones when it comes to non-technical issues or
project leadership.

I'm saying that non-technical contributions to Debian should be
recognized with enfranchisement equal to technical contributors when
it comes to non-technical issues.

> > The system could still require a key signed by another Debian
> > developer. The identity part of NM is not the most difficult part
> > for many and is easily overcome even by non-developers.
> 
> Err, all that means is that we have a weak trust in the
>  identity of the people, but does nothing to address commitment,
>  responsibility, and trust in that person, or any idea if they
>  adhere to the foundation principles of the project.

I've said in other posts that I want to recognized significant and
sustained contributions. Those contributions should be at the same
level for technical and non-technical contributors but we should be
able to recognize contributions of both types.

> The solution is not to dilute the franchise, the solution is
>  rather to induct all trustworthy significant contributors commited to
>  the project as full members.
> 
> It has never been about work -- else upstream authors doing
>  all the heavy lifting should be the ones voting. It is about
>  commitment, responsibility, and trust.

That's precisely what I was suggesting. Perhaps we're not in
disagreement at all.

Regards,
Mako


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



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Benj. Mako Hill]

> And maybe I'm too heavily steeped in Debian culture to take an
> objective view, but I don't see any reason why translators,
> documentation writers, artists, et al. should look at the term
> "developer" and conclude it's not for them.

First, none of these groups usually think of the work that they do as
development. That's just not he way the word is used. But that'a
semantic argument. The larger reason that this is a problem is
because:

 (1) We as a project (and an NM project) are hesitant to give these
 people developership since it means they can upload to the
 project which introduces a set of potential risks and problems
 (one more account to compromise, etc).

 (2) Our NM process is highly optimized and documented for testing
 technical knowledge and package maintenance. Documentation is
 maybe an exception. A pure advocacy NM would run into trouble.

If we can address those two issues, I think my issues with the
terminology will go away.

> Developing an operating system is what we *all* do; not just
> packagers or maintainers, but also documentation writers, bug
> submitters, buildd maintainers, QA folks, translators, and everyone
> else.  The term isn't "software developer" or "programmer", it's
> simply "developer", which I think encapsulates the concept of what
> Debian is, and I wouldn't like to lose that.

> I'd rather see us do a better job of communicating this principle to
> prospective developers instead.

Fair enough.

Regards,
Mako

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



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 6 Apr 2006, JC Helary said:

>
> On 2006/04/06, at 22:50, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>
>> And anyway, it's not like people who should consider to join have
>> nothing to do with Debian and don't know the particularities of its
>> culture - even if this is unclear to people who are new to Debian,
>> it should be no problem for an active contributor.
>
> Did it ever occur to you that one can be an active Debian
> contributor and not use Debian at all ?

Contribution itself does not merit the right to decide how
 the project conducts business. Involvement in, and commitment to, and
 taking responsibility for some area of the project, well, that is
 what get you voting rights.

> Obviously this thread started with somebody who is a very active
> contributor for whom it was unclear.

Active contributor to Ubuntu, I think. She should get Ubuntu
 voting rights.

manoj
-- 
I just ate a whole package of Sweet Tarts and a can of Coke. I think I
saw God. Hathrume Duk
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

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 6 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill told this:

> 
>> And maybe I'm too heavily steeped in Debian culture to take an
>> objective view, but I don't see any reason why translators,
>> documentation writers, artists, et al. should look at the term
>> "developer" and conclude it's not for them.
>
> First, none of these groups usually think of the work that they do
> as development. That's just not he way the word is used. But that'a
> semantic argument. The larger reason that this is a problem is
> because:
>
> (1) We as a project (and an NM project) are hesitant to give these
> people developership since it means they can upload to the
> project which introduces a set of potential risks and problems
> (one more account to compromise, etc).

I'm sorry. If we can't trust these people not to abuse upload
 privileges, then I certainly do not want to see them get  a say in
 deciding how we conduct the project's business.

Eiether we trust them, in which case we should induct them in
 as full members, or we don't, and in that case they do not get to
 vote. 

manoj
-- 
Any given program will expand to fill available memory.
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

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 6 Apr 2006, JC Helary uttered the following:

>
> On 2006/04/06, at 23:18, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
>
>> Also even if -from an outsiders perspective- the jargon used is
>> quirky and strange. I have to wonder: if one is not even willing to
>> look at the jargon used by the project from the projects point of
>> view. Then why on earth would one be applying to NM-process in the
>> first place? And how on earth would one expect to pass the
>> philosyphy and procedures part of the process?
>
> Which is the reason why this whole thread started.
>
> Why is it that active contributors would have to go through all this
> to have a right to vote in the Project Leader's election ?

To build up a sense of trust, and give the project some
 assurance that they adhere to the core principles of the project. It
 also gives a sense that there is a commitment to the project itself,
 not some upstream-or-downstream entity.

> This is what is questioned by people who contribute.

Lots of people contribute to the OS that Debian produces.  Not
 all of those contributions reflect commitment to the project itself,
 or responsibility for an area of Debian, and continued contribution. 

> If you dismiss such claims by saying "they just have to wait for 200
> days after having contributed for so long in the dark" it is not
> going to work.

With enfranchisement comes responsibility, and with
 responsibility comes the requirement of assurances that the person
 can handle the responsibility.

manoj
-- 
Decision maker, n.: The person in your office who was unable to form a
task force before the music stopped.
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: GR proposal - Restricted-media amendments to the DFSG

[Clint Adams]

>   (warning: spoilers)

Stop that.


-- 
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

[Lars Wirzenius]

to, 2006-04-06 kello 15:05 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
> On 6 Apr 2006, JC Helary said:
> > Obviously this thread started with somebody who is a very active
> > contributor for whom it was unclear.
> 
> Active contributor to Ubuntu, I think. She should get Ubuntu
>  voting rights.

Actually, the Debian BTS is splattered all over (in a good way) with
Vietnamese translations from Clytie, so she's contributed quite a lot to
Debian, too.

(Not commenting on other aspects of the issue at hand.)

-- 
Fundamental truth #5: Always ask the simple troubleshooting questions
first.


-- 
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

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 6 Apr 2006, Lars Wirzenius uttered the following:

> to, 2006-04-06 kello 15:05 -0500, Manoj Srivastava kirjoitti:
>> On 6 Apr 2006, JC Helary said:
>>> Obviously this thread started with somebody who is a very active
>>> contributor for whom it was unclear.
>>
>> Active contributor to Ubuntu, I think. She should get Ubuntu
>> voting rights.
>
> Actually, the Debian BTS is splattered all over (in a good way) with
> Vietnamese translations from Clytie, so she's contributed quite a
> lot to Debian, too.


Unfortunately, I think most if that is from before we drove
 her away from Debian into the arms of Ubuntu.

manoj
-- 
A shy teenage boy finally worked up the nerve to give a gift to
Madonna, a young puppy.  It hitched its waggin' to a star.
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

[Erinn Clark]

* Benj. Mako Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:04:06 15:35 -0400]: 
> 
> > Scripsit "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 
> > > I think that the fact that the upload keyring is the same as the
> > > voting keyring is bad. Contributors are told they can't vote until
> > > they learn C compiler flags.
> > 
> > Who tells contributors that nonsense?
> 
> Have you read the NM process templates lately? They are what almost
> every contributor looking for enfranchisement sees.

Do you mean this question? (Actually about ld, but it's the closest one I found
that seemed appropriately irrelevant.)

I3. What is the -Bsymbolic ld flag, exactly what does it do, and how
that differs from library symbol versioning? What problems do
-Bsymbolic linking solve? Why is libc6 not compiled with -Bsymbolic?


-- 
off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide


-- 
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 4/6/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Did it ever occur to you that one can be an active Debian contributor
> > and not use Debian at all ?
>
> No. And even if it did, I fail to see how that is relevant here. You
> cannot be an active Debian contributor without knowing about its
> culture, which is what Marc was talking about.

Tell that to Clytie.

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

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

[Eddy Petrişor]

On 4/6/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nobody's saying that you are going to stop being a developer. You can
> > be proud of what you do being a developer. You've earned that status.
> >
> > But requiring people who are not software developers to understand
> > they suddenly have become developers because Debian is special is a
> > little far fetched.
>
> I don't see why.

Because we should not redefine common used language in order not to
offend present DDs, but we should make it clear that DD does not have
to be == packager/coder.

Because the people aproaching Debian should not go away because they
realise we are redefinig words. Heck, we _shouldn't_ redefine them. Is
a really broad acception that developer==code developer==programmer.

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

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

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 17:56:06 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:

> Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > On Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:35:38 +0100 MJ Ray wrote:
> > > Of your last 20 recorded uses of the word "Maintainer" on
> > > debian lists before this thread that I found, you use it once
> > > in another meaning (webmaster) and that was uncapitalised.
> > 
> > Which makes "Maintainer" unsuitble for translation maintainers how,
> > exactly?
> 
> If 95% of the time, people (including you, as described) use 
> Maintainer to mean package maintainer, then people will not
> read Maintainer and think "...or translator or tech writer..."
> in this context. Many people (including me) would not even
> think of using Maintainer to refer to a translator.

I deal with packaging 95% of the time, so yes, most probably I use the
term mostly in packaging contexts. And when used in Debian Policy to
describe packaging rules, it makes sense to equal "maintainer" with
"package maintainer". But in a general Debian context I would be rude
to assume _package_ maintainance, ignoring other important maintainance
tasks within our project.


> > > What are the contributors doing if not helping to maintain
> > > the package, in your opinion?
> > 
> > I do not talk about "contributors", but several different kinds of
> > "maintainers".
> 
> You did write about contributors.

I wrote about those contributors committed to Debian by _maintaining_ a
part of Debian, be it packages, languages, law texts or other parts.

The most exact general term I know of for that group of contributors
is, well, maintainers.

Another general term, developers, is fine too. But IMHO not better. And
I see not reason to avoid the term "maintainers" to mean _all_
maintainers - even if some of them has other more suitable terms when
described by themselves - as is the case with those maintaining
translations as discussed below.


> > What eg. Translation Maintainers are doing besides helping maintain
> > some package is maintaining _consistency_ across packages, and
> > across pseudo-packages like our website.
> 
> Isn't it easier and more common to call them translators, not
> Translation Maintainers?

It is, yes.

And it is easier and more common to call package maintainers
maintainers.

But that doesn't make "maintainers" mean only package maintainers.


 - Jonas

-- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm


pgpJJ7zp6ZXMD.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Joey Hess]

Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Unfortunately, I think most if that is from before we drove
>  her away from Debian into the arms of Ubuntu.

Clytie is on record as IIRC, using OSX and contributing to as many
translations of free software projects as she can, whether she
personally uses them or not. She's also listed as the Vietnamese
translator for d-i, which is currently 98% up-to-date.

-- 
see shy jo


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

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

[Frans Pop]

On Thursday 06 April 2006 23:55, Erinn Clark wrote:
> Do you mean this question? (Actually about ld, but it's the closest one
> I found that seemed appropriately irrelevant.)
>
> I3. What is the -Bsymbolic ld flag, exactly what does it do, and
> how that differs from library symbol versioning? What problems do
> -Bsymbolic linking solve? Why is libc6 not compiled with -Bsymbolic?

I would guess this is a question from the T&S part of the process, the 
part that is supposed to be tailored to the applicant. At least, I'm very 
happy to say, I have never seen this question during my NM process 
(which, as you probably know, was the translator/documentation writer 
track).

So this only proves the point: translators _can_ become DD without having 
to know this kind of technical detail. Of course, they are also expected 
to stay far away from packaging libraries [1] after they have completed 
their NM process...

Cheers,
FJP

[1] A principle I've been violating to some extend with my recent series 
of patches for library udeb dependency handling. But well, exceptions 
make the rule :-)


pgppj5U1wpa6v.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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

[Jeroen van Wolffelaar]

On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 12:35:54AM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 06 April 2006 23:55, Erinn Clark wrote:
> > Do you mean this question? (Actually about ld, but it's the closest one
> > I found that seemed appropriately irrelevant.)
> >
> > I3. What is the -Bsymbolic ld flag, exactly what does it do, and
> > how that differs from library symbol versioning? What problems do
> > -Bsymbolic linking solve? Why is libc6 not compiled with -Bsymbolic?
> 
> I would guess this is a question from the T&S part of the process, the 
> part that is supposed to be tailored to the applicant. At least, I'm very 
> happy to say, I have never seen this question during my NM process 
> (which, as you probably know, was the translator/documentation writer 
> track).

I have seen the question, and answered it. If you were to ask it again
to me, I wouldn't know the answer. I'd probably either do the same
research again, or look in my NM archives -- I think the latter is
probably fastest.

I've never maintained a C library, though I did agree to help a little
bit on some C++ library recently. I don't expect I'll go looking up what
-Bsymbolic means even now.

Is this question useless? I don't know. Apparantly, it didn't help me in
any way. And this is the type of question that can get obsolete too.
What is much more useful to test, but can't *that* easily be done with a
fixed questionaire, is ensuring people can apply common sense, and can
research things they need. From a DD, I expect that given a challenge, a
technical packaging issue previously totally unkown, one can some way or
the other resolve it. That is what you're doing as DD anyway, you get
the weirdest issues in bugs, as user questions, etc, and you need to
find a way to resolve that. Policy doesn't mention your special case, so
you're on your own.

I'd very much like for more emphasis being placed on such problem
resolution capabilities, next to also interaction/communication
capabilities (with bugreporters, fellow DDs, upstreams, etc etc).

--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl


-- 
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

[Manoj Srivastava]

On 6 Apr 2006, Eddy Petrişor said:

> On 4/6/06, Wouter Verhelst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Did it ever occur to you that one can be an active Debian
>>> contributor and not use Debian at all ?
>>
>> No. And even if it did, I fail to see how that is relevant
>> here. You cannot be an active Debian contributor without knowing
>> about its culture, which is what Marc was talking about.
>
> Tell that to Clytie.

Be that as it may, one should not get to make decisions
 critical to the project without knowing the projects culture,
 methodologies, philosophy, and the basics of its internal structures.

I also can't put much trust in a person to not harm Debian
 (delibrately or inadvertently), if there level of involvement and
 commitment to the project isn't demonstrable.

Lacking that, I would humbly thank the person for their
 contribution, acknowledge it, and leave enfranchisement off the
 table.

manoj
-- 
Sometimes, too long is too long. Joe Crowe
Manoj Srivastava   <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>> Scripsit "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>> > I think that the fact that the upload keyring is the same as the
>> > voting keyring is bad. Contributors are told they can't vote until
>> > they learn C compiler flags.

>> Who tells contributors that nonsense?

> Have you read the NM process templates lately?

Are you referrring to the template set that is explicitly meant for
applicants that want to do package maintenance (in contrast to, say,
documentation)?

In particular I don't see anything about compiler flags in the ts.doc
template.

In general, a prospective applicant needs to do some rather thorough
searching before he finds the template at all - they are publicly
viewable, but not simply through clearly marked links from the NM
corner webpage.  Long before the would-be applicant stumbles across
the templates, he will have seen
 which clearly indicates
that the T&S step depends on what kind of contributions the applicant
wants to make to Debian.

-- 
Henning Makholm  "Jeg kunne ikke undgå at bemærke at han gik på hænder."

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

[Don Armstrong]

On Thu, 06 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
> 
> > Scripsit "Benj. Mako Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > I think that the fact that the upload keyring is the same as the
> > > voting keyring is bad. Contributors are told they can't vote
> > > until they learn C compiler flags.
> > 
> > Who tells contributors that nonsense?
> 
> Have you read the NM process templates lately? They are what almost
> every contributor looking for enfranchisement sees.

That's primarily because the common case is a contributor who is
involved in package maintenance; for them at least a cursory
understanding of how the various flags affect programs that link
against library is important.

The T&S template for NM who are doing documentation[1] actually
doesn't even ask about compiler flags. Presumably NMs who are involved
in other bits of Debian will be asked questions that are more tailored
to the area of Debian in which they are contributing. [I personally
haven't yet served as an AM to someone who isn't doing the traditional
package maintainer route yet though... and since I'm not heavily
involved in those areas myself,[2] it's unlikely that I'd be
comfortable serving as an AM for contributors to those areas.]

As a final note, the templates are just that, templates. An AM is
relatively free to tailor the process to the job that the applicant is
actually performing. This is a bit more time consuming for the AM, but
it's ideal for applicants who are involved in non-traditional roles in
Debian.


Don Armstrong


1: This is nm_ts.doc.txt in the nm-templates repository for those
following along at home

2: Well, beyond being involved in the licensing aspect of things,
anyway.
-- 
Three little words. (In decending order of importance.)
I
love
you
 -- hugh macleod http://www.gapingvoid.com/graphics/batch35.php

http://www.donarmstrong.com  http://rzlab.ucr.edu


-- 
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

[Henning Makholm]

Scripsit Jeroen van Wolffelaar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

>> > I3. What is the -Bsymbolic ld flag, exactly what does it do, and
>> > how that differs from library symbol versioning? What problems do
>> > -Bsymbolic linking solve? Why is libc6 not compiled with -Bsymbolic?

> I've never maintained a C library, though I did agree to help a little
> bit on some C++ library recently. I don't expect I'll go looking up what
> -Bsymbolic means even now.

> Is this question useless? I don't know. Apparantly, it didn't help me in
> any way.

I'm not so sure. Remembering that this is the exact spelling of the
option that frobnitzes the thingamajib is pretty useless, I agree.
(For the record, I remember that the hardest part of this question was
thinking up a way in which -Bsymbolic could conceivably be said to be
_similar_ to symbol versioning ...)

But simply through the process of once having been able to answer
these question you get some latent background knowledge of how symbols
are handled in ELF shared libaries and how the abstraction works, and
I think that background knowledge is valuable. Symbol-name mistakes
can cause pretty tricky interaction bugs, and it's not too farfetched
that maintainers of packages that _use_ libraries will sometimes need
some basic knowledge about which kind of things the dynamic linker
does.

I'm not saying that this is _necessarily_ something EVERY
package-maintaining developer has to know (especially given how much
of Debian actually happens in scripting languages anyway these days),
but it is not as completely specialized as you appear to imply.

-- 
Henning Makholm   "Oh, hvilken kok detilig!"


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

Re: Private copies of list replies (Was: Re: buildd and experimental)

[MJ Ray]

Glenn Maynard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [...]
> If you're not subscribed and don't want copies anyway, set your own MFT
> header saying so, which would prevent the list from guessing otherwise.
> If the user has set MFT explicitly, the list should probably not mess
> with it.

If the user has explicitly not set MFT because they don't want to
use broken non-standards, the list should not mess with it either.
-- 
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

[MJ Ray]

Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> That's total bullshit. If they would really care about joining, they
> could simply start to read the documentation, which explicitly shows
> them how to understand the term maintainer and/or developer.

That's total bullshit. Do you read all documentation which seems
irrelevant to the task you're trying to do? If you really cared
about the project, you could simply start to talk to prospective
developers and try to understand why they're not joining.

Not really a helpful reply style, is this?

Hoping,
-- 
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]