Re: Developers vs Uploaders
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007:03:18 12:36 +0100]: > On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Erinn Clark wrote: > > - It's not obvious what problems it's meant to be solving > > > > Is it meant to be a stepping stone for NM? Prevent sponsor(ee) burnout > > and boredom? Is it meant to replace NM eventually? If so, what are the > > current NM problems _besides_ sponsoring and boredom that it's > > solving? And what's causing all the waiting -- is it reasonable or > > not? Are the NMs at fault? etc. > > The problem is to allow more small-scale contributors. We have volunteers > who would like to maintain only few specific packages and who don't want > to go the burden to go through NM to be able to do that job. The skills > required to maintain one or two small packages are different from the > skills that the NM process requires. How are they different? You have to demonstrate technical ability and some level of comprehension about Debian policy. That seems to be true for both NMs and potential DMs. NMs just have to write more essays. > The checks for the NM process are more strict and rightly so, because the > rights of a DD are important. Which rights do you mean? (I assume voting rights here -- are there others you're referring to?) > Additionnaly, once this possibility exists, it just make sense to use it > for NM who have already proved their skills. I fail to see why it would > augment the length of their NM process. On the contrary, the time won for > his sponsors can be reused to train other people and/or process more > people in the NM queue. Well, most people in NM are just waiting for someone else -- this goes for AMs as well. And the more people you add, the more likely you are to have to wait for them to get to you. > > Because here's what I think about those: NM could be revamped > > The NM team awaits your contributions. :-) I'm still in therapy for the time I spent in it. Maybe later. ;) > > - Overly bureaucratic > > I would prefer drafting a jetring entry for a good sponsoree of mine > instead of continuing the sponsorship... sponsorship is also bureaucracy > past a certain point. But above all of that, would you prefer they got through NM? > > - More power structures > > I see that as good thing when we have more people able to empower other > people to do Debian work. In theory it's good -- in practice? ... Well, have you ever been a part of a management-heavy system? At some level it becomes a process fetish and I think that's something worth fighting. > > - Trust and upload rights > > > > I don't think upload rights should be given out trivially, but I also > > think that if you've got upload rights, you might as well have full > > rights and that you ought to have been through all of the "inspection" > > a current NM/DD would have to go through. The idea I'm getting from > > this is that you don't even have to agree with Debian philosophy or > > have much verification for who you are in order to have upload rights. > > That's simply wrong. Of course, we'll require them to agree to the SC and > DFSG. And of course, that there will be checks, that's why we have > sponsors for DM _before_ they get added. OK, my mistake. > But you know agreeing to the SC and DFSG (and checking the GPG key) is the > shortest part of the NM procedure. I do. So what I'm seeing is: - They agree to the DFSG - They agree to the SC - They have their key signed - They demonstrate enough packaging ability and community integration to get into this DM keyring and earn the right to autonomously upload packages Why not just make them DDs? If we trust them enough with our users' machines, surely we can trust them with our own? They can easily opt out of using their @debian.org email addresses, and most DDs already opt out of using their voting rights. :) At best, this is a replacement for NM. But mostly it seems a lot like pointless bureaucracy added on to an already long and tedious process for which there's barely enough manpower. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developers vs Uploaders
* Anthony Towns [2007:03:15 04:22 +1000]: > If people don't do a good job as a "maintainer" they should have their > priveleges removed fairly promptly; and if a developers recommends > people to be listed as maintainers who turn out to be a problem, or if a > developer just doesn't stay around to help them out when the need arises, > they should stop being allowed to recommend people. Who gets to decide this and what kind of process would be implemented? What exactly would be a good job? > In the long term, I think it would be sensible to have keyring-maint > be a group looking after both this keyring and the developer keyring; > and also to have the members of that team not be part of DSA or DAM to > avoid concentration of powah. While I get the idea of decentralizing power, to some extent, here are my concerns with this proposal: - It's not obvious what problems it's meant to be solving Is it meant to be a stepping stone for NM? Prevent sponsor(ee) burnout and boredom? Is it meant to replace NM eventually? If so, what are the current NM problems _besides_ sponsoring and boredom that it's solving? And what's causing all the waiting -- is it reasonable or not? Are the NMs at fault? etc. Because here's what I think about those: NM could be revamped, but I think the last thing it needs is MORE steps or more avenues with even more gatekeepers at each one. People will be in NM for five years if that happens. Which leads me to my next point... - Overly bureaucratic NM is already too complicated. This is basically a way to implement middle managers in Debian, as far as I can tell -- it's one thing to have multiple points of failure, but if they're all sequential then there's no real gain, and finding ways to get a group of people to work together and agree (like with a proposed "court" of voters -- eek) is not something I am personally convinced will work. The only time it works is with cabals, and they only work in secret, so I'm disinclined to believe this will function differently. - More power structures OK, this may be a personal bias, but I have a real issue with power structures and think as few of them as possible should exist, especially in Debian. IMO the only way to mitigate against the inevitable carving out of fiefdoms is to not implement such things. - Stratification As a subset of the power structure thing, one of the other issues I foresee is a "some developers are more equal than others" thing happening. I'm having a hard time thinking of how to explain this, because it's a bit "télétubby", as Joss would say, but I think there is ample world history that supports the idea that caste systems negatively impact societies, unless you're in the upper caste. And this bullet would not be complete with a gratuitous mention of Gattaca and A Brave New World. :) - Trust and upload rights I don't think upload rights should be given out trivially, but I also think that if you've got upload rights, you might as well have full rights and that you ought to have been through all of the "inspection" a current NM/DD would have to go through. The idea I'm getting from this is that you don't even have to agree with Debian philosophy or have much verification for who you are in order to have upload rights. Because if you don't, then upload rights probably shouldn't be given to you, and if you've already proven that stuff, then, again, you may as well be a full-fledged developer. And what happens when the DMs realize they can't vote (but want to) and that they now have to complete NM anyway? Overall, my impression is that this is a bandaid that might have the unfortunate side effect of ripping our collective skin off. SCC is PEOPLE! -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
* 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: For those who care about debian-devel-announce
* MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 21:22 +]: > Erinn Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Were I a listmaster, that would've > > been one of my considerations, regardless of what he'd done to justify > > the ban. I think it's potentially important that the rest of us know > > some disciplinary action has been taken, but I can't say that it's > > relevant to, say, his future employers. > > Is there anyone who wouldn't hire Andrew because he was > *punished* for a post, rather than because of the post? > The "lesbians" post was public and GPG-signed, after all. Fair enough, but exacerbating the situation doesn't seem like an improvement. I am, of course, wildly speculating on potential motivations, rather than asserting something should be public. I suspect the listmasters are the only ones who actually know why it was done the way it was. > Religious intolerance reflects more badly on debian than the minority. > Help stop it, please. I'm afraid I haven't got a clue what you're talking about here. > > (M-F-T: set to -project, *please* reply there.) > > (Done manually. M-F-T is a broken non-standard.) Apologies, I was unaware of this until you mentioned it. (Please be more verbose in the future.) -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: For those who care about debian-devel-announce
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006:01:18 20:23 +0100]: > Michael Poole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Joerg Jaspert writes: > >> On 10538 March 1977, Martin Schulze wrote: > >>> Since this mail also mentions Andrews sarcastic posting > >>> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/01/msg9.html I > >>> may lose posting permissions as well. > >> You should lose -private rights, as you clearly cant follow its rule to > >> not leak. > > I don't understand. Martin's email did not mention -private. Do you > > mean to say that this decision was made as the result of discussion on > > -private? > > No, but the decision was only published in a posting to -private. The > whole point of Joey's mail was to make the act of revoking posting > permissions public (which I support, though I'm not too happy about the > way it was done) It's not possible for those of us not on -private to figure out what's going on, really, but is it possible that it wasn't made public in an effort to protect Andrew's privacy? Were I a listmaster, that would've been one of my considerations, regardless of what he'd done to justify the ban. I think it's potentially important that the rest of us know some disciplinary action has been taken, but I can't say that it's relevant to, say, his future employers. (M-F-T: set to -project, *please* reply there.) -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Complaint about #debian operator
* Josh Rehman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:12 12:52 -0800]: > You read the transcript: are you saying that you think your fellow > operator acted rightly? As a fellow #debian operator, I have to say that I did agree with his actions and probably would've been less patient. -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Complaint about #debian operator
* Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2005:12:11 16:32 -0800]: > On Saturday 10 December 2005 12:07 pm, Josh Rehman wrote: > > > As for being warned, I was told that because my discussion was about > > ubuntu I should stop. Because I felt my discussion was not about > > ubuntu, I did not feel that I should have to stop. > > So you deliberately show newbie arrogance, get called on it, then complain? > Dude, you got what you deserved, now you're just embarrassing yourself with > how much you and most 13 year olds on AOL have in common. Paul, While it was kind of you to take time out of your busy schedule to berate Josh (I mean, I know -user needs a lot of attention from you...) could you please drop it? And FYI everyone else: Paul is not, to my knowledge, a regular in #debian, lest you be afraid this kind of behavior is tolerated in there. :) -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
One time on Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 01:24:08AM -0800 this person named Jonathan Walther wrote: > I don't believe the treatment you receive in channel #debian is > representative of how women are treated in the project itself, by actual > developers. The Debian developement team, including myself, has always > bent over backward to be inclusive and polite to females. Perhaps they were not developers but the channel is a Debian resource. Most people do not meet the developers before they consider becoming one, or, in fact, when they first begin using Debian. It's an off-putting environment, and not just for women. > Should we then have special standards for women? That is, men should > not flame, but women can be rude if they feel like it? I would be ok > with such a standard, as long as it is explicitly stated. I don't believe you were present during the #debian-devel discussion. That was directed at people who thought I was overreacting or that I shouldn't have used foul language, etc. I never said men couldn't be rude. > >1. Don't pander to us just because we're women. > Why not? There are standards of civility, and those standards include > acting like a gentleman. Acting like a gentleman is an antiquated notion, much like "acting like a lady." However, that is another debate, so I won't discuss any follow-ups you may include to this statement. Just know that we disagree. > >2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women. > Impossible. More than 90% of the worlds men use that as their chief > criteria for choosing who they flirt with. Should Debian now exclude > all heterosexual men? I believe you misunderstood the statement. You don't have to flirt with someone just because she has a vagina. > Does that happen very often? Are you certain the insults are because > you are female, as opposed to other reasons, such as a conflict between > female behaviors and male behaviors? Well, "very often" is probably subject to interpretation. It happens too often, IMO, but probably not "very often" to you. I have been insulted plenty of times for reasons not relating to my gender. I'm able to tell the difference. I don't want special treatment - I'm sorry if you think these three things are classified as special. Erinn -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide http://double-helix.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Just a single Question for the Candidates
One time on Thu, Mar 04, 2004 at 09:50:06PM -0500 this person named David Nusinow wrote: > You can plug your ears and shout "It's not real!" all you want, but that > doesn't make it so. Exactly. BTW, for those of you who don't already know, I'm the helix from IRC. I want to say a few things and I hope I won't just end up preaching to the choir. Everyone who has stated that #debian is abusive is totally on point (and there have been too many of you for me to give credit. ;)) However, that doesn't trivialize the nature of treatment I've received for the past year. It should not be par for the course. Just because you're a geek does not make you immune to normal social conventions. The topic being discussed was the lack of women in Debian and I felt it proper to provide some anecdotal evidence for the treatment some of us have received. What you all saw was only from one day - there have been more instances of that, some of them not as overt as others so I can see why some of you may not consider it a big deal. Did I overreact? I don't think so. This kind of behavior is far too common for me to get used to and I really don't think the onus is on me, or any other woman, to be polite when reacting. Also, I consider leaving out of the question since there are a great many people whose company I enjoy and who are not total idiots. What about the future women who come into the channel? And true, these were not Debian developers, but the fact is, most people are users (like me) before they ever consider becoming developers. If your first impression of Debian is that people are going to be abusive, there is a problem. A lot of women I know will not go to #debian because of the treatment - in fact, one of them told me she's considered becoming a developer (and take my word for it, you'd be lucky to have someone so talented) but is put off by the abusive environment of Debian, sexism notwithstanding. So something to consider is that the aggressive behavior is more the problem than overt *or* covert sexism. Unfortunately, many people may consider this to be a strong point - whatever, again, these are speculations on my part. This is not an argument about how bad the treatment I received was on a scale of 1-10. Likewise, this is not an argument about Helen's lack of courage. She stated an opinion. That's not something you can debate. I encourage those of you who are not already listening to do so - a lot can be accomplished that way. If I may, here are three simple rules to follow when dealing with women: 1. Don't pander to us just because we're women. 2. Don't flirt with us just because we're women. 3. Don't insult us just because we're women. Obviously, some of you don't need this. In fact, it may not even reach the eyes of those who do. Either way, I think the increased op activity in #debian is a Good Thing and hopefully will prevent abuse (of everyone) in the future. Erinn -- off the chain like a rebellious guanine nucleotide http://double-helix.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
