Re: NEW queue
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:45:47PM +, Stephen Gran wrote: > argued that everyone can and should work together. I just mentioned > that if the pool of people willing to do annoyingly tedious work in > exchange for being insulted regularly on mailing lists was that large, > we should have seen more applicants. Would you assume then, that if all those positions were vacated, there would be no one volunteering to fill them? > What I gather from this overwrought verbiage is that you don't think > groups of people should be able to choose to work together on the part > of Debian that interests them? What I think is that if core team members insist that they have the right and "freedom to choose what you spend your time on and who you spend it with" and this translates to only letting people join if they're "trusted", you have a problem. If the DPL delegates a new person to join a core team and old people resign or fade away because they don't "trust" or want to work with this new person, you have a second problem. If there are plenty of people willing to help out but not if it means working with one or more of the current members, you have a third problem. I think that such problems are systemic, and don't get fixed merely by shuffling personnel around. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
work and live in canada
You're invited to "work and live in canada". By your host First NameKatherine Pritcard: Date: Tuesday October 28, 2008 Time: 1:00 am - 2:00 am (GMT +00:00) Will you attend? RSVP to this invitation at: http://calendar.yahoo.com/brunswick_halifaxinfo?v=126&a1=0&iid=fhASNJvdaYWk%40A0IJxHHUBl%40lmf-almfmhA8AnjBLOg%40%40eamTpBQIx%40%40&igid=PxaHx0n%40IMjoaWg4FxcWEXd%40I308%40kYdqhdMpxjAoIfeaap9D%40h9EYp%40eib%40 Copyright © 2008 All Rights Reserved www.yahoo.ca Privacy Policy: http://privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/ca Terms of Service: http://ca.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: Debian Logo stoled
"BF" == Ben Finney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> BF> For this, though, the relevant field is not copyright; it's BF> trademark. BF> Debian does, IIRC, have a trademark monopoly on the Debian BF> logos; but I can't find reference to that, so I may be BF> wrong. I'll continue on the assumption that they *are* BF> trademarks held by SPI. No, we don't. We have a trademark on the word ``Debian''. We do not have a trademark on the swirl logo or any other logotype. Claire +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ Man cannot be civilised, or be kept civilised by what he does in his spare time; only by what he does as his work. W.R. Lethaby +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ C.M. Connelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] SHC, DS +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+ pgpwdc9iwjCNt.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: motivation (Re: It's all about trust)
On Mon Oct 27 20:28, Holger Levsen wrote: > Her basic idea is, that in addictive games the first levels of success are > easy to achieve and then it gets harder, but only so slowly so that people > dont loose motivation. She also manages very well to carry this over to free > software development and I suggest you watch it (its 45min), as she can > really connect this much better than I can do here.) > > Currently, in Debian it is (still) really hard to get involved and part of > the > project (though to be fair, it's perceived even harder than it is). DM was a > good step in the right direction and we should keep that direction, not add > too many levels of access, priviledges and buerocrazy. Surely the multiple levels are the point she is making? By having multiple levels of access and/or privileges you can slowly give them out and make the early ones easier to attain. The reason for creating posts/roles/statuses which are more restricted than full access is that you can make it correspondingly easier to be granted them and therefore they can be used to help people not lose motivation before they manage to get the full access. Matt -- Matthew Johnson signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Debian 0.91 beta
> Please get it from here: > http://www.greffrath.com/debian/archive/debian-0.91beta.tar.gz Now, while I was moving sarge to archive.d.o I wanted to get this there too. Unfortunately I can't. Its binary only. Does *anyone* have sources for such old Debian releases? -- bye, Joerg I'm James Troup, long term source of all evil in Debian. you may know me from such debian-devel-announce gems as "Serious Problems With " -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developer Status
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 04:24:24PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: >> The Debian Contributor class is a class of people that the Debian >> project doesn't give any tool/resource to do their work. > > Which is untrue: > > - you can dig in this thread and you will find members of DSA stating > that DC can be given shell access to project machines if they need > it > > - examples of well respected porters which nowadays are "nothing" for > Debian (in term of how we recognize them, not in term of how useful > they are for us!) can be given access to buildds / port machines > > - as per my proposal in a separate thread they can be given > @debian.org mail addresses None of which were in the original proposal/announcement. These kind of stuff would indeed make it much better (although I still have my doubts on the design, which is why I haven't proposed any similar fixes). > > - on the same lines, they can be given commit access rights to the > repository of some of our infrastructure (e.g., the PTS, whose > committers nowadays need to be DDs, for no evident reason) That is a separate problem that just happens to be possibly solved by this. -- Felipe Sateler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
motivation (Re: It's all about trust)
Hi, On Monday 27 October 2008 17:20, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > If someone is only trustable to package perl modules, shouldn't he be a > > DM instead of a DD? > We might want him to be able to package new perl modules on his own? Where > do you draw the line? If you maintain 20 or 50 perl modules? The above two quote reminded me of two different aspects, which I havent seen spelled our this clear in this thread so far. a.) giving out access/rights, can be very _motivating_: I can tell from my own experience mostly or more clearly in Debian Edu than in Debian, that I do a lot of stuff in Debian Edu, because I was granted the rights which I needed to do these kinds even though I didnt need the rights. (Simply said: I got svn commit for everything (even though I only needed svn commit for a fraction), so I started to work on everything. (This is definitly also true for Debian, but to a lesser extend. Debian is more cautious with granting access.) The other aspect is a bit contradictionary or might sound so. I'm still deeply impressed by the Kathy Sierras keynote at LCA 2007 about passionate users. It's available at http://mirror.linux.org.au/pub/linux.conf.au/2007/video/friday/Friday_0900_Sierra.ogg and I suggest you watch it if have ever thought/think about motivating volunteers. Her basic idea is, that in addictive games the first levels of success are easy to achieve and then it gets harder, but only so slowly so that people dont loose motivation. She also manages very well to carry this over to free software development and I suggest you watch it (its 45min), as she can really connect this much better than I can do here.) Currently, in Debian it is (still) really hard to get involved and part of the project (though to be fair, it's perceived even harder than it is). DM was a good step in the right direction and we should keep that direction, not add too many levels of access, priviledges and buerocrazy. regards, Holger pgprwf4vLuLFb.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: It's all about trust
On 27/10/08 at 17:20 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > On 27/10/08 at 16:40 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > > - this process might be too heavy with fine-grained privileges as it > > > > > would > > > > > require the intervention of many DD each time we have to grant a > > > > > right > > > > > (when trusting the decision of 2 members with special rights would > > > > > be enough). > > > > > > > > That's why I don't think that it's a good idea to play with a lot of > > > > different privileges. Privileges should be granted when they are > > > > necessary to do something, and if you are a DD, you should be able to > > > > easily get any privilege you need to do your work. You are already > > > > trustworthy, so there's no need to double-check everything you do. > > > > > > If I advocate someone based on some perl modules, I trust him to handle > > > any perl modules reasonnably well but I certainly don't trust him to > > > package a new library. I do trust some people to refrain from doing stupid > > > things with their DD powers but that kind of trust comes with much more > > > time and interaction. It's not the kind of trust that I would give to > > > anyone that has only proven that he's able to package perl modules. And > > > yet we want to give that contributor some immediate reward for his work. > > > > If someone is only trustable to package perl modules, shouldn't he be a DM > > instead of a DD? > > We might want him to be able to package new perl modules on his own? Where > do you draw the line? If you maintain 20 or 50 perl modules? We could improve DM so that it's possible to say "this DM has the right to upload any of the packages tagged perl-module-maintained-by-the-perl-team". New packages would still have to be sponsored by a DD, though. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's all about trust
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > On 27/10/08 at 16:40 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > > - this process might be too heavy with fine-grained privileges as it > > > > would > > > > require the intervention of many DD each time we have to grant a > > > > right > > > > (when trusting the decision of 2 members with special rights would be > > > > enough). > > > > > > That's why I don't think that it's a good idea to play with a lot of > > > different privileges. Privileges should be granted when they are > > > necessary to do something, and if you are a DD, you should be able to > > > easily get any privilege you need to do your work. You are already > > > trustworthy, so there's no need to double-check everything you do. > > > > If I advocate someone based on some perl modules, I trust him to handle > > any perl modules reasonnably well but I certainly don't trust him to > > package a new library. I do trust some people to refrain from doing stupid > > things with their DD powers but that kind of trust comes with much more > > time and interaction. It's not the kind of trust that I would give to > > anyone that has only proven that he's able to package perl modules. And > > yet we want to give that contributor some immediate reward for his work. > > If someone is only trustable to package perl modules, shouldn't he be a DM > instead of a DD? We might want him to be able to package new perl modules on his own? Where do you draw the line? If you maintain 20 or 50 perl modules? Note that my proposal doesn't change much to that problem except that when one gets granted the extended rights for this specific reason, that pseudo-contract between the community managers and the contributor would/could be more explicit and the contributor would be informed that we expect him to go through sponsors when he decides to package something else than perl modules. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's all about trust
On 27/10/08 at 16:40 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > > - this process might be too heavy with fine-grained privileges as it would > > > require the intervention of many DD each time we have to grant a right > > > (when trusting the decision of 2 members with special rights would be > > > enough). > > > > That's why I don't think that it's a good idea to play with a lot of > > different privileges. Privileges should be granted when they are > > necessary to do something, and if you are a DD, you should be able to > > easily get any privilege you need to do your work. You are already > > trustworthy, so there's no need to double-check everything you do. > > If I advocate someone based on some perl modules, I trust him to handle > any perl modules reasonnably well but I certainly don't trust him to > package a new library. I do trust some people to refrain from doing stupid > things with their DD powers but that kind of trust comes with much more > time and interaction. It's not the kind of trust that I would give to > anyone that has only proven that he's able to package perl modules. And > yet we want to give that contributor some immediate reward for his work. If someone is only trustable to package perl modules, shouldn't he be a DM instead of a DD? -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's all about trust
On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > > - this process might be too heavy with fine-grained privileges as it would > > require the intervention of many DD each time we have to grant a right > > (when trusting the decision of 2 members with special rights would be > > enough). > > That's why I don't think that it's a good idea to play with a lot of > different privileges. Privileges should be granted when they are > necessary to do something, and if you are a DD, you should be able to > easily get any privilege you need to do your work. You are already > trustworthy, so there's no need to double-check everything you do. If I advocate someone based on some perl modules, I trust him to handle any perl modules reasonnably well but I certainly don't trust him to package a new library. I do trust some people to refrain from doing stupid things with their DD powers but that kind of trust comes with much more time and interaction. It's not the kind of trust that I would give to anyone that has only proven that he's able to package perl modules. And yet we want to give that contributor some immediate reward for his work. Am I missing something here ? Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's all about trust
On 27/10/08 at 16:01 +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > Power-hungry might well be interested by this role but when 20 other > people have the same power, you really don't gain much with your power. > Unfairness is difficult to avoid as all human judgment have a subjective > part… but I don't see why this would be exacerbated with this proposial > compared to the status-quo or to the N-advocations model. Being one of 20 super-DDs picked amongst ~1000 DDs is still a nice distinction to have. > > Since apparently, the NM process doesn't allow people to trust new DDs > > anymore, I would prefer to move to a system where trust comes from the > > fact that a large number of normal DDs advocated someone (like what Lars > > proposed). > > Several (possible) problems with this approach: > > - increasing the number of advocations by DD to increase the trust has a > real cost. A contributor will usually have interacted with very few > sponsors that can advocate him at little cost since they already > reviewed his work. The other advocates will then have to review the work > by themselves to gain the required confidence. Chances are rather large > that we will have DD who won't do that job and advocates people just to > reduce the backlog of applicants that look motivated. I agree that it would be impractical to require that, for each applicant, at least 20 DDs have personally reviewed his work. However, the connections don't have to be direct connections. If both DDs A and B advocate someone, and I trust A's and B's judgement, I could advocate the applicant simply because, if A and B advocated him, he must be OK. Of course, if I state that I advocated him because A and B advocated him, another C, who trusts me but doesn't trust A and B, will probably choose not to advocate the applicant (or to review his work). The current problem is that some DDs, that some of us consider untrustworthy, advocate people. And then, we don't trust those people, because there's no chain of trust between us and them. > - finding many advocations to grant a right might be doable, but removing > a right is much less fun and will never happen in practice if it follows > the same rule of a "large numbers of DD" > > - this process might be too heavy with fine-grained privileges as it would > require the intervention of many DD each time we have to grant a right > (when trusting the decision of 2 members with special rights would be > enough). That's why I don't think that it's a good idea to play with a lot of different privileges. Privileges should be granted when they are necessary to do something, and if you are a DD, you should be able to easily get any privilege you need to do your work. You are already trustworthy, so there's no need to double-check everything you do. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's all about trust
Hi, thanks for your comment. For reference, people might not have noticed but my initial mail was not only a reply to liw's mail but a real alternative proposal. BTW, I added some further explanations on my blog: http://www.ouaza.com/wp/2008/10/27/debian-membership-reform/ On Mon, 27 Oct 2008, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > What you want to do is to create a small group of DDs, called "Debian > Community Managers", that would have super-powers and be able to manage > the rights of other DDs. It will start small but it might get rather large if we have a real set of developers that trust each other enough to be able to follow the (predefined) rules to distribute the rights. And I believe that we have such a set of developers. > Something I really like in Debian is that it tries to keep everybody at > the same level. Sure, some people have special privileges, but they are > usually necessary to accomplish special tasks, and those tasks are often > not very fun ones. Well, it's true that the "same level" that is shared would be somewhat lowered but as this level includes the right to vote and to propose GR I don't think that it's a real problem in term of fairness as people could always get the rule changed or have their say in the orientation of the project. > Your proposal changes that, by creating a group of super-DDs who > wouldn't have any special task to do, except exercise their super-DD > powers. That sounds like a perfect role to have for power-hungry people, > but also like something that could create huge feelings of unfairness, > jealousy, etc. They have a task: ensure we don't loose confidence in the quality of the work done by our volunteers. They are not alone working on this but the fact that they would control privileges distribution would give them a special role on this. Power-hungry might well be interested by this role but when 20 other people have the same power, you really don't gain much with your power. Unfairness is difficult to avoid as all human judgment have a subjective part… but I don't see why this would be exacerbated with this proposial compared to the status-quo or to the N-advocations model. > Since apparently, the NM process doesn't allow people to trust new DDs > anymore, I would prefer to move to a system where trust comes from the > fact that a large number of normal DDs advocated someone (like what Lars > proposed). Several (possible) problems with this approach: - increasing the number of advocations by DD to increase the trust has a real cost. A contributor will usually have interacted with very few sponsors that can advocate him at little cost since they already reviewed his work. The other advocates will then have to review the work by themselves to gain the required confidence. Chances are rather large that we will have DD who won't do that job and advocates people just to reduce the backlog of applicants that look motivated. - finding many advocations to grant a right might be doable, but removing a right is much less fun and will never happen in practice if it follows the same rule of a "large numbers of DD" - this process might be too heavy with fine-grained privileges as it would require the intervention of many DD each time we have to grant a right (when trusting the decision of 2 members with special rights would be enough). In general, I find it more productive to have a few trustable individuals doing a serious review than to have many doing a not so serious review and trusting the advocation already done by other DD. It also cristallize better the responsibility to decide what one is allowed to do. With the current NM process it's spread over many individuals and at the end nobody is responsible if someone has gone through when he really shouldn't. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Le best-seller français mis à jour pour Debian Etch : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: It's all about trust
Hi, On 24/10/08 at 21:59 +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > As such I really don't buy that all DD should be equal when it comes to > technical work however I do think we have to move in the direction where > we broaden our membership to new kind of contributors and that all > contributors should have the possibility to request all kinds of > privileges (mainly vote right, limited upload right, full upload right, > right to grant privileges to others). The set of contributors with > the right to grant privileges to others could be called "Debian Community > Managers" and would only comprise very skilled and dedicated members. This > group would replace the NM team and would grant/retire privileges > according to their own judgment and a set of reasonable rules to > define. The initial set of community managers would be designated by a > vote. Ideally the group of community managers would evolve > to cover all the main teams of Debian so that for any privilege request we > have one or more members that are well placed to evaluate the work of > others. What you want to do is to create a small group of DDs, called "Debian Community Managers", that would have super-powers and be able to manage the rights of other DDs. Something I really like in Debian is that it tries to keep everybody at the same level. Sure, some people have special privileges, but they are usually necessary to accomplish special tasks, and those tasks are often not very fun ones. Your proposal changes that, by creating a group of super-DDs who wouldn't have any special task to do, except exercise their super-DD powers. That sounds like a perfect role to have for power-hungry people, but also like something that could create huge feelings of unfairness, jealousy, etc. Since apparently, the NM process doesn't allow people to trust new DDs anymore, I would prefer to move to a system where trust comes from the fact that a large number of normal DDs advocated someone (like what Lars proposed). -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F | -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: giving @debian.org mail addresses to voting contributors
On Sunday 2008-10-26, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > Well, different weight. To be able to clearly seperate (using the terms > of my much-discussed text) "is a DC/DM" and "is a DME/DD". Basically > the look to the outside (press, users, etc), if a DC/DM writes something > it is less binding to the project than if a DME/DD writes something. > IMO. Don't agree with that, all depends on the subject being writen about: For instance if the subject is debian-installer, than it's those working on that who have more weight. If on the other and the subject is translation than it's translators whose word carries most weight. Idem for any other team/area. I don't think this is a problem anyway, it's common to say 'I'm not involved with that, talk to $person/$list instead' when asked about something you're not involved in. The person being asked being a packager/translator/doc writer/artist/... has no bearing on that, and in reverse if they're being asked about their area of involvement their word should carry more weight. -- Cheers, Cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: giving @debian.org mail addresses to voting contributors
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 02:07:16AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote: > The idea for contributor.d.o includes either to reserve all existing > debian.org UIDs within the @contributor.d.o namespace or activate > them as forwarding or giving people the choice to activate or > whatever. What about the other direction? Would [EMAIL PROTECTED] reserved as [EMAIL PROTECTED] If so it will be in fact a single namespace (due to isomorphism), if not @contributor.d.o might be requested to change nick while gaining access to @debian.org, which is not that nice, and I don't think we should be that worried to loose @debian.org entries. > > As a consequence of that reasoning, why not giving plain @debian.org > > mail addresses to voting contributors? > Well, different weight. To be able to clearly seperate (using the terms > of my much-discussed text) "is a DC/DM" and "is a DME/DD". Basically > the look to the outside (press, users, etc), if a DC/DM writes something > it is less binding to the project than if a DME/DD writes something. > IMO. Yes, surely it is a matter of weight. But I see a continuous with our current situation and the proposals you have been pushing for. For instance do we have different mail domains for DDs with different access rights (leader, DAM, CTTE, ...)? We don't, we just happen to have the rule that everybody with upload rights has the right to have its own @debian.org address. As a rule it seems quite arbitrary, doesn't it? The most natural alternative IMO is then creating a big bucket containing everybody that the Debian project has identified as identifier contributors which share its principles. Hence, @debian.org for Debian Contributors "and up". Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right uno zaino-- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Developer Status
On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 04:24:24PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: > The Debian Contributor class is a class of people that the Debian > project doesn't give any tool/resource to do their work. Which is untrue: - you can dig in this thread and you will find members of DSA stating that DC can be given shell access to project machines if they need it - examples of well respected porters which nowadays are "nothing" for Debian (in term of how we recognize them, not in term of how useful they are for us!) can be given access to buildds / port machines - as per my proposal in a separate thread they can be given @debian.org mail addresses - on the same lines, they can be given commit access rights to the repository of some of our infrastructure (e.g., the PTS, whose committers nowadays need to be DDs, for no evident reason) Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7 [EMAIL PROTECTED],pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/ Dietro un grande uomo c'è sempre /oo\ All one has to do is hit the right uno zaino-- A.Bergonzoni \__/ keys at the right time -- J.S.Bach signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Re-thinking Debian membership
On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 09:56:09PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Secondly, What exactly to these members of the project do, if > they do not vote or upload packages? They might commit to the webml repository or sent mails to debian-news, e.g. Of course, they could just vote as well, but if we have an extra measure for packagers, maybe also for otherwise contributing members. Michael -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
