Re: Developer Status
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:16:54PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote: Sorry for being late in discussion, but I was quite busy... To cite an extreme example, Ingo Juergensman doesn't do packaging nor anything of the above. Nevertheless, he's an active member of the Debian community for many years (even despite severe problems) by supporting the m68k port with hosts and maintenance. He should be able to vote on general Debian issues such as the project leader. This is an interesting point. Do you thing Ingo Juergensman could not pass a simple test on packaging or on BTS? He could anyway ask ftp-master to have upload right removed. Erm, well, it's one thing that I might be able to pass packaging tests as well as I fiddle with debian/control and such from time to time, but that's nothing I want to do at all (packaging). The other thing is: why test packaging in the first place when asking ftp-admin later to remove upload rights? That doesn't make much sense to me... ;) I think most of our experienced users will have enough capabilities for a simple test, and anyway, I would not put him in an other category. Let giving him other tests, but let him to be a normal Debian Developer. This giving him other tests seems to be the problem. When I applied as NM back then, there were apparently no other tests than packaging tests. At least nothing knew how to deal with my I don't want to package application so I wasn't assigned an AM for a whole year. who is not interested on upload packages. No need for new categories. I'm in favour with Martins proposal to change the whole to role based permissions, not categories. Voting people should be trusting people, so without constitutional limits. He would decide to have restricted rights. Trust was one of my major reasons to apply as NM back then, because I felt that it would be better to have a strong trust relationship between the Project and myself, because m68k is being built on approx. 5 machines (out of 20) of mine. Another reason was/is that I'm often already seen as part of the Debian project by others. I then need to explain that I'm not a DD, but just a random contributor, although the perception ot other peoples is different. Doing some advocacy for Debian on fairs and meetings is another point. I'm not comfortable with saying we in Debian when I'm not really a member of it. Well, 'nuff said... when there's a decision about a change in NM/becoming a member I might re-apply happily and I believe Debian would benefit from other peoples skills (i.e. not packaging) as well. -- Ciao...// Fon: 0381-2744150 Ingo \X/ http://blog.windfluechter.net gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Developer Status
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:59:54AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: Debian is about developing a free operating system, but there's more in an operating system than just software and packages. If we want translators, documentation writers, artists, free software advocates, et al. to get endorsed by the project and feel proud for it, we need some way to acknowledge that. This is where our proposal comes in. Could you point to some non-programmers contributors that would be interested into that process? Have you talked to them about it? *raisesHand* When I applied as NM back then[TM] I expressed explicitly that I doesn't maintain any packages nor wanting to maintain a package in the future. Because there was no procedure how to deal with that situation during NM, I wasn't applied an AM for over a whole year. Therefore I withdraw my application after that year. Now I could re-apply, in theory... -- Ciao...// Fon: 0381-2744150 Ingo \X/ http://blog.windfluechter.net gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Bits from the DPL: FTP assistants, marketing team, init scripts, elections
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 10:01:31PM +0200, Lars Wirzenius wrote: On ma, 2008-02-25 at 10:31 -0500, David Moreno wrote: IMHO, the DPL position should have less showcase and more time to get some real work done during time (say, two years, since the free software and the technology world changes drastically in short periods of time). We already discussed last year lengthening the DPL period to two years. Martin Michlmayr, the most recent example we have of a DPL that has served more than two years, said it was a bad idea: I don't think it's a good idea to increase the time of a DPL term. http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2007/08/msg00043.html See the thread for more detailed arguments. Sorry for not having the time to read that thread, but just a quick idea: how about keeping yearly elections and introduce a 2 year period of the DPL in that way, that the new elected DPL is second in charge (2IC) or vice-DPL. That way the new DPL can slightly take over the business and the old DPL can assist later when the new DPL is swamped with work. My (narrowed) point of view is, that each DPL starts enthusiastic, but gets overloaded with work quite soon and don't find the time for important things like DPL updates to the community, working on his/her todo list, etc... Of course this idea should be more eloborated... like specific time frames how long the new DPL will be 2IC and such. For example 6 months 2IC, then the takeover of the new DPL and the old DPL will be 2IC for another 6 months to help the new DPL. Just an idea... -- Ciao...//Fon: 0381-2744150 Ingo \X/ SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij_public_key.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 05:09:56AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: On Fri, Feb 23, 2007 at 10:04:26AM +0100, Ingo Juergensmann wrote: On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:56:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Um, the only archs that don't meet the redundancy requirement today are i386 and ia64. http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html says alpha, amd64, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, and m68k don't meet it, fwiw. Oops. Updated with more current info. Sadly, you missed the archive coverage for m68k. See http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-week-big.png or http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png to see that m68k is ~98% uptodate for a long time now. I didn't bother syncing up any of those numbers. None of them are so far off to actually matter. Ah, sorry, my fault... I interpreted your prior mail as intention to keep all archs uptodate on that page, not only selected archs. Silly me, believing that being below 98% was one of the reason of not being counted as an release arch... But interested point of view... -- Ciao...//Fon: 0381-2744150 Ingo \X/ SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: BREAKING NEWS: Debian developers aren't trusted
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 06:56:01PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: Um, the only archs that don't meet the redundancy requirement today are i386 and ia64. http://release.debian.org/etch_arch_qualify.html says alpha, amd64, arm, hppa, i386, ia64, and m68k don't meet it, fwiw. Oops. Updated with more current info. Sadly, you missed the archive coverage for m68k. See http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-week-big.png or http://buildd.debian.org/stats/graph2-quarter-big.png to see that m68k is ~98% uptodate for a long time now. -- Ciao...//Fon: 0381-2744150 Ingo \X/ SIP: [EMAIL PROTECTED] gpg pubkey: http://www.juergensmann.de/ij/public_key.asc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
