Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On 2006/04/07, at 1:39, Wouter Verhelst wrote: 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 the term does not apply to non coders in a normal software context. And the NMP implies that too whatever provisions have been made in trying to adapt the text to the present 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
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. What is Debian more than a sum of packages that for some require translations, when seen from a FOSS translator ? Why do you think there is a need to "understand" whatever Debian "culture" there is to technically contribute to the project ? This point is very relevant because putting subjective conditions (understanding a "culture") to allow full membership has nothing to do with objectively valuating a contribution. Which is what this thread is about. 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
Which makes "Maintainer" unsuitble for translation maintainers how, exactly? Because translators mostly don't "maintain" translations but plainly "contribute" translations. Ie. Translators mainly _translate_. What do you call translation maintenance anyway ? 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". Which is obviously not what this thread is about. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On 2006/04/05, at 21:53, Frans Pop wrote: On Wednesday 05 April 2006 14:27, JC Helary wrote: Besides, the systematic use of "developer" is also confusing and to clarify things should be replaced my "member" as is also hinted in the same document. You cannot change the word "developer" to "member" without changing the Debian Constitution [1] ... [1] http://www.debian.org/devel/constitution Well then there is a problem since the glossary in: http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint#Member says: Member, Developer: A Debian Project member, who has gone through the New Maintainer process and had their application accepted. So obviously, members are developers and developers are members. Also in the constitution there is clear reference to developers=project members in 5.1.2 2. Lend authority to other Developers. The Project Leader may make statements of support for points of view or for other members of the project, when asked or otherwise; Problem is, the systematic use of "developer" supports an exclusive maintainer->developer->voter frame of mind when the use of contributor->member->voter would have a totally different impact. Obviously it is not a procedural modification that is at stake here, but a linguistic one (and we are back on topic). The constitution does not need to be changed since it already acknowledge implicitly that project member and developer are equivalent terms. What needs to be modified is the "Debian New Maintainers' Corner", to provide an unambiguous wording as to what kind of contribution and what kind of process are required by a contributor to apply for project membership. Jean-Christophe Helary -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On 2006/04/05, at 20:53, Frans Pop wrote: On Wednesday 05 April 2006 13:14, JC Helary wrote: I am not sure what point you are trying to make ? The point I'm trying to make is that it seems like translators are waiting for the mountain to come to them (change procedures, make entry easier). It does not work like that: you have to go to the mountain. There is no need to change any procedure. Only to clarify the wording of http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint So that the text does not unnecessarily discriminate between maintaining packages and contributing in other forms. Such non-discrimination is hinted in the text itself and in the application steps. It is only that the document is not worded in a way that present the necessary information the right way. Besides, the systematic use of "developer" is also confusing and to clarify things should be replaced my "member" as is also hinted in the same document. I have no doubt that a rewording of the document would clarify a lot of (non) issues and help members as well as other contributors to see what the structure of the project really is. What I mean is that as there are currently no pure "translation DDs", there is no need to differentiate between "rights". It would only _potentially_ become a problem when there are more than a few people accepted as DD who do not have formally proven skills in packaging. Considering the above status, I don't see how having pure translators or pure documentation writers could be considered a "problem". People who need upload rights because their contribution pattern requires upload right must have upload rights when deemed responsible enough. People who have no need for upload rights _and_ who never intend to do anything related to packaging should not be discrinated against and should not be given upload rights since their contribution pattern does not require so. There are provisions for different skill tests and from that should follow different access to different tools. Jean-Christophe Helary -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On 2006/04/05, at 20:02, Frans Pop wrote: On Wednesday 05 April 2006 11:44, JC Helary wrote: There is a huge confusion between being a developer and having technical rights, and being a developer and having political rights. I seriously do wonder why translators, if they really want to get the developer status, don't get together and just apply for NM. That would force the project to develop a strategy to deal with it (if there really is something that needs to be dealt with). I am not sure what point you are trying to make ? Could you make a short summary ? About the specific item you mention above (develop a strategy to "deal" with translators), I think that is _specifically_ what non package maintaining contributors want: to be "dealt" with. As for the buzz before election times, well, that's what election times are for: create buzz. I don't see any problem with that. Jean-Christophe Helary -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what are developers ? (was Third call for votes...)
On 2006/04/05, at 15:27, MJ Ray wrote: "The Debian New Maintainer process is a series of required proceedings to become a Debian Developer." -- http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint Or is the above statement false? It seems to disagree with the constitution section 3.2.1 "Developers are volunteers who agree to further the aims of the Project insofar as they participate in it, and who maintain package(s) for the Project or do other work ^^ which the Project Leader's Delegate(s) consider worthwhile"? -- http://www.nl.debian.org/devel/constitution It does not disagree with it. It just does not say it all. Many people wish to contribute to Debian, though not all know that you don't need to be an official developer to do so. Sponsors can integrate work of non-developers and do so on a frequent basis. Some ways of contributing (translating, writing documentation and reporting bugs) can be done by everyone and don't require developer status. This means that there are 3 kinds of contributors: 1-would be developers (involved in coding) 2-official developers (with upload rights) 3-other people who don't need to be developers to contribute (the rest) I understand 3- as _technically_ don't need to be developers, since developers are defined as: Every official Debian developer is associated with Debian, [...] can log in on most systems that keep Debian running and has upload permissions for all packages. Giving this kind of access is accompanied by a great deal of trust, as we heavily depend on our secure infrastructure. There is an obvious need for a strict application process to get such rights. But besides for the technical necessity to have such people in the project hierarchy, there is no necessity to restrict access to the political process to uploaders. There should be a different contribution structure that includes similar distinctions between "supporting contributions" and "managing contributions" in other fields: Generally speaking: 1) people who work under a sponsorship 2) people who sponsor Each activity could adopt such a structure (and if not could not be entitled to participate to the polical process): translation participant/translation QA resp-sponsor documentation participant/documentation QA resp-sponsor test-debugging participant/test-debugging QA resp-sponsor maintenance participant/maintenance QA resp-sponsor etc. Obviously, not all managing contributors would need full access rights to _all_ (or any of) the servers. So in the end we'd still have a "super-class" of contributors who are entitled to upload access but the uploaders would share the political burden with people who contribute in different ways. It's about time one could show the full Vietnamese translation files as an answer to the "show me the code" request... Jean-Christophe Helary -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
