Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Remember, you're the idiot who started the polemic ... bullshit. If they would really care ... lunacy that I was mimicking. That is unacceptable behaviour and I ask you to correct it. I really don't think that *you* are in a position to ask other people to correct their behaviour. Firstly, I dispute the implied criticism. Secondly, if you do think I'm rude, then *me* of all people claiming your message is too rude should make you check it! Do you think that calling the views of others a farmyard by-product and denying their stated interest in debian is good style? What purpose does it serve? From http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct - Do not use foul language [...] Try not to flame; [...] Naturally, those docs are mainly speaking about the NM process as applicant doing packaging work. The reason for this is quite simple - more than 95% of the people expressing their wish to join do packaging work. Where do you get that 95% statistic from? That one's easy. I'm FD and know how many translators have spoken about becoming a developer in relevant places - either by actually applying, mailing the FD or speaking about it on the respective mailing lists. The Do you compile and publish this sort of interesting statistic anywhere? (Could anyone else? Where is Front Desk mail archived?) number is quite small (about 4 people, depending what you count as interest in an account), while we had more than 134 people who applied in the last year in total, with *no* translator or documentation NMs under them. How many translators are active in the project? Does that absence of translator DD applicants suggest a problem? If so, that alone should ring the alarm bells, as packaging alone doesn't seem like 95% of the work that we're struggling to get done. I don't know, but I know that a lot of work done for website maintainance, translation management and documentation is done by people who are also package maintainers. People doing non-packaging exclusively are quite unusual. I suspect they're unusual within NM, not unusual in general. Regards, -- 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
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: quote who=Don Armstrong date=Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 12:49:08PM -0700 I don't think there's any way to make that easier until we have more people who fit into those positions wanting to become DDs. It's a bit more complex than that. You, for example, were active on -legal and in a few other non-technical ways but went through the package maintains NM route because you had technical abilities and because it seemed more straight forward and you didn't have to fight for your right to become a DD via non-traditional criteria. You see this happening a lot. To some extent... but the main reason why I went through the process was because I wanted to participate in the development of Debian, both in packaging, and in the FOSS/community/legal aspects. It just happened that testing for the packaging was the most obvious way to go through the process, because it was the main thing that I was going to be doing (and really, the only thing that required me being a developer.[1]) The first few applicants going through the process in a new role will always take a bit longer, but they'll be helping develop the process too, so I'd hope that they'd be reasonably accepting of that. It is clear that our current NM process is prohibitive long for many potential contributors (we've had good contributors give or not bother). How many more of our potential pool do we lose by stretching it out a bit longer and asking people to argue for the importance of their contributions from a position of no power within the project? I don't really have an answer to that. I'm concerned about it,[2] but there's only 24 hours in most days, and it's far more rewarding for me (and I suppose other AMs) to spend the time on people who are willing to put in the time, and are interested in working with the process and improving it. I think Marc has really hit the critical slowdowns of the current process on the head, but they basically devolve back to the standard problems that we've been fighting with forever; we're all volunteers, and we're all very busy. 1) Not enough AMs 2) NMs who aren't ready/not obviously involved/busy 3) DAMs who are very busy 4) FD who are likewise busy 5) AMs who are busy Don Armstrong 1: Well, there is a question of whether or not I can actually represent the project without being a Developer, but I'd submit that I'm no more capable of representing the project as a DD than I was as a random person. ;-) 2: Just like most of the people who are involved in the NM process or participating in this thread are... -- No amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free [...] You can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him. -- Robert Heinlein _Revolt in 2010_ p54 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
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 07:31:12PM +0900, JC Helary 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. What is Debian more than a sum of packages that for some require translations, when seen from a FOSS translator ? You know, you were *very* close to insulting me here, until I noticed that you were speaking hypothetically. You might want to make that more clear next time ;-) I'm sure some people think that way, and I have nothing against that. However, if such people want voting rights, that means they want to be part of our community. If they want to be part of our community, I don't think it's too much to ask for them to understand our community, and thus, our culture. People who're looking at Debian as a bunch of packages in need of translation, but otherwise not very interesting are not likely to be interested in voting rights. They are, thus, completely outside of the scope of this discussion. Why do you think there is a need to understand whatever Debian culture there is to technically contribute to the project ? There is none. There is, however, a need to understand the Debian culture if you want voting rights. -- 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
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 07:33:48PM +0900, JC Helary wrote: 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. No, but it does apply to non coders in a Debian context, and that's what Debian is about. And the NMP implies that too whatever provisions have been made in trying to adapt the text to the present project. Sorry, I can't parse that. -- 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
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 12:52:36AM +0300, Eddy Petrişor wrote: On 4/7/06, Micah Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. By your argument, then the USA should give all its citizens access to our nuclear arsenal, launch codes, etc. because we trust them to have a say in deciding how the government is run. Hmm, I see, you see yourself as government. No. In a democratic government, everyone who is part of the electorate gets to decide how the government is run, and the government is to report to the electorate. That isn't actually the same thing. That would explain the dictatorial thinking as every governship tends to enslave the governed people. Err, no. You should think of yourself as a representative of the users instead of their master. No; in every democratic government, the electorate is the government's boss. [...] -- 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
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 07:27:52PM +0900, JC Helary wrote: Which makes Maintainer unsuitble for translation maintainers how, exactly? Because translators mostly don't maintain translations but plainly contribute translations. Err, no. It is generally preferred that those who translated the previous version of a given document will do the next version, too, unless they specifically decide otherwise. In that respect, try running man podebconf-report-po. Ie. Translators mainly _translate_. You are so mistaken. And yes, I do know what I'm talking about -- I happen to be involved with the translation to Dutch. -- 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
quote who=Don Armstrong date=Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 12:49:08PM -0700 AMs, the DAM and other people in the project are more hesitant to grant developership to people with non-standard forms of contributions. Sometimes, it's simply harder to test for these because there aren't templates or even qualified AMs! Sure; it's basically a case of no one having yet figured out exactly how to do it. Great. That's somewhere to start. :) I don't think there's any way to make that easier until we have more people who fit into those positions wanting to become DDs. It's a bit more complex than that. You, for example, were active on -legal and in a few other non-technical ways but went through the package maintains NM route because you had technical abilities and because it seemed more straight forward and you didn't have to fight for your right to become a DD via non-traditional criteria. You see this happening a lot. The first few applicants going through the process in a new role will always take a bit longer, but they'll be helping develop the process too, so I'd hope that they'd be reasonably accepting of that. It is clear that our current NM process is prohibitive long for many potential contributors (we've had good contributors give or not bother). How many more of our potential pool do we lose by stretching it out a bit longer and asking people to argue for the importance of their contributions from a position of no power within the project? Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- 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
Scripsit Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 09:39:15PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: A translator whose general modus operandi is leave his translation unmaintained once it is written should not become a voting member of Debian anyway - not any more than a packager who leaves his package unmaintained once it is uploaded. so if a translator will commit to 'maintaing' a particular package translation, would that be a demonstration of the same commitment to the 'project' like software package maintaing and could then lead to him/her being a DD? I don't see why it shouldn't be sufficient for the has already done good work for Debian part of the existing process. Whether it demonstrates overall commitment would need to be judged by the AM. For example, translating the 4 strings in some obscure and close-lipped tool would probably not in itself be evidence of great commitment, but taking care of the translation of packages with hundreds of strings would. There is no direct parallel to this question for packagers, because having a package survive the NEW queue already only happens if the package is not completely trivial. On the other hand, a package with 4 translateable strings might well welcome translations, even though each translation itself is trivial. -- Henning Makholm We will discuss your youth another time. -- 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
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 03:07:41PM -0500 (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. I agree completely. I said, one more account to compromise to highlight the fact that an elevated risk is not necessary connected to a lack of trustworthiness in the person. Why have 2,000 possible upload keys when only 1,000 people intend to ever use theirs -- even if we can trust the people who we have accepted to not abuse their privilege? Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- 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
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:43:52AM -0500 I'd like to see those who have made long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to Debian enfranchised. That could mean broadening the category of developer through changes to NM or it could also mean another enfranchised category of contributor. That's what I read as the argument at the core of this thread -- but perhaps I was just projecting. I think we need to make them full, undifferentiated, members of the project. Which means going through a process where we know they adhere to our foundation documents, and spend time with a trusted developer (AM) so we have a better idea of who they are, and can have a modicum of trust in that they do not sabotage the project. I agree completely. My only criticism has been with limiting or putting up roadblocks to full undifferentiated membership for people making certain type of contributions. I'm not suggesting a lower bar for PP, trust, identity, etc. 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
quote who=Don Armstrong date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 01:50:50PM -0700 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. AMs, the DAM and other people in the project are more hesitant to grant developership to people with non-standard forms of contributions. Sometimes, it's simply harder to test for these because there aren't templates or even qualified AMs! Documentation is relatively common. i18n is a little trickier. I asked around about developership for Debian's lawyer and was told by everyone that it seemed problematic. Don: You were extremely active in Debian-Legal before becoming a developer. Were you tested or evaluated on those contributions? If not, why not? 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
quote who=Erinn Clark date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 05:55:09PM -0400 * Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006:04:06 15:35 -0400]: quote who=Henning Makholm date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:32:26PM +0200 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? Yes. But it was just an example. I could not correctly answer that question. 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
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] you're free to submit patches. Until then, I'd prefer if you would not reply in a purely polemic way, as your contribution to actually solve the problem isn't identifiable. Remember, you're the idiot who started the polemic ... bullshit. If they would really care ... lunacy that I was mimicking. That is unacceptable behaviour and I ask you to correct it. I really don't think that *you* are in a position to ask other people to correct their behaviour. [...] Naturally, those docs are mainly speaking about the NM process as applicant doing packaging work. The reason for this is quite simple - more than 95% of the people expressing their wish to join do packaging work. Where do you get that 95% statistic from? That one's easy. I'm FD and know how many translators have spoken about becoming a developer in relevant places - either by actually applying, mailing the FD or speaking about it on the respective mailing lists. The number is quite small (about 4 people, depending what you count as interest in an account), while we had more than 134 people who applied in the last year in total, with *no* translator or documentation NMs under them. If so, that alone should ring the alarm bells, as packaging alone doesn't seem like 95% of the work that we're struggling to get done. I don't know, but I know that a lot of work done for website maintainance, translation management and documentation is done by people who are also package maintainers. People doing non-packaging exclusively are quite unusual. Marc -- BOFH #169: broadcast packets on wrong frequency pgpEQvi3Yjjyz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On Sat, 08 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: quote who=Don Armstrong date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 01:50:50PM -0700 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. AMs, the DAM and other people in the project are more hesitant to grant developership to people with non-standard forms of contributions. Sometimes, it's simply harder to test for these because there aren't templates or even qualified AMs! Sure; it's basically a case of no one having yet figured out exactly how to do it. I don't think there's any way to make that easier until we have more people who fit into those positions wanting to become DDs. Presumably some of the more senior AMs will have a better idea of how to make sure that these people are qualified to fulfill the position that they want to fulfill. The first few applicants going through the process in a new role will always take a bit longer, but they'll be helping develop the process too, so I'd hope that they'd be reasonably accepting of that. Don: You were extremely active in Debian-Legal before becoming a developer. Were you tested or evaluated on those contributions? If not, why not? Not to any great extent, no. I was doing package maintenance then (and still am) so that's what I was tested on primarily. [I was asked to assist with a few DFSG/FOSS understanding issues, but I didn't think of that as part of the NM process.] Of course, since that was part of my contribution to Debian at that point in time, my AM and later the DAM (heh) would have looked at what I was doing there too. Don Armstrong -- THERE IS NO GRAVITY THE WORLD SUCKS -- Vietnam War Penquin Lighter http://gallery.donarmstrong.com/clippings/vietnam_there_is_no_gravity.jpg 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
On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 01:02:48PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 09:39:15PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: snip I don't see why it shouldn't be sufficient for the has already done good work for Debian part of the existing process. Whether it demonstrates overall commitment would need to be judged by the AM. For example, translating the 4 strings in some obscure and close-lipped tool would probably not in itself be evidence of great commitment, but taking care of the translation of packages with hundreds of strings would. Hi Henning, I just remembered something from our 'humanity-towards-others' upstream; they have language translation packs. If this were adopted, then translators could 'maintain a packages' and have their names on it and other signs of commitment. 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 [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]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: 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 TS 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 I'm in the NM process. I'm done with part 1 of TS and still have to do part 2, which includes that question. I don't know the answer to it. To find the answer, I'll have to do research. I'll probably read a lot about libraries while finding the answer, since it's a topic I don't know much about. I don't think the question is designed so much as to test whether I know about library compile options as my ability to do research and to process, understand and utilize the information I find. I think that Debian and the NM process don't care about how well you know compile time options from memory, but that you have the skill to learn new skills and pieces of information as you need them. That's a general skill, and can only be tested by more specific questions. Just my $0.02, Benjamin Seidenberg PS: If anyone wants to share the answer, reply by private mail. ;-) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
Scripsit JC Helary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Which makes Maintainer unsuitble for translation maintainers how, exactly? Because translators mostly don't maintain translations but plainly contribute translations. A translator whose general modus operandi is leave his translation unmaintained once it is written should not become a voting member of Debian anyway - not any more than a packager who leaves his package unmaintained once it is uploaded. -- Henning MakholmManden med det store pindsvin er kommet vel ombord i den grønne dobbeltdækker.
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
Re: Manoj Srivastava 2006-04-06 [EMAIL PROTECTED] quote who=Steve Langasek date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:30:46AM -0700 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. The term Developer has been used for many years in Debian, and efforts to change it are doomed to fail. No current (package- maintaining) developer will want to give that title away. What we can do, is to extend this title to all kinds of Debian (contributing) members, be it artists, lawyers, whatever. I'm very much in favor of doing this. 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 agree that this is a problem. We have to make up our mind of who we want to accept as member (Developer). I'm willing to discuss that at Debconf, so if anyone else is interested in doing this, please tell me. 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. My fullest ack here. Half-memberships of all kinds doesn't help, and just insults people. Either we accept someone as a member and trust them to use their abilities to the best (i.e. they won't NMU glibc if they are an artist, and won't redesign the Debian logo if they are a kernel hacker), or we shouldn't accept them as member. This doesn't mean that every developer would have access to every corner of the project (like currently, not every DD is a member of the 'debadmin' unix group), but that there are no un-crossable borders (I'm a package DD, yet I could ask for access to the webwml group to start translating webpages). Christoph -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://www.df7cb.de/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On 7 Apr 2006, JC Helary spake thusly: 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 ? Which is fine. If that is all Debisn is to them, they shall not miss voting rights -- I mean, they already control the translations, the important bit, neh? Why do you think there is a need to understand whatever Debian culture there is to technically contribute to the project ? Nothing. But we are not talking technical contributions, we are talking about deciding where the project is heading, or over riding the decisions of delegates, or changing the social contract -- all oof these were on the table this early in this year alone. 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. We can value contributions until we are blue in the face. RMS, Linus -- and a cast of thousands. But mere contributiosn do not accrue people voting rights. manoj -- The best may slip, and the most cautious fall; He's more than mortal that ne'er err'd at all. -- Pomfret Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
On 2006-04-06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill told this: quote who=Steve Langasek date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:30:46AM -0700 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. By your argument, then the USA should give all its citizens access to our nuclear arsenal, launch codes, etc. because we trust them to have a say in deciding how the government is run. 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. There are many people in my organization that I trust completely, who do not have root on our boxes. They dont have root because of a number of very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with trust in other areas. Your rigid definition of trust = upload don't make sense to me. Yes, you have to be trusted to be able to upload, but you dont have to have upload abilities to be able to be trusted. Micah -- 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 7 Apr 2006, Micah Anderson outgrape: On 2006-04-06, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 6 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill told this: quote who=Steve Langasek date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:30:46AM -0700 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. By your argument, then the USA should give all its citizens access to our nuclear arsenal, launch codes, etc. because we trust them to have a say in deciding how the government is run. Full members do not get rights to, say, restricted machines, or the archive, or the keyring, so you are actually supporting my views. Either that, or you have no idea how the internals of Debian work. Your rigid definition of trust = upload don't make sense to me. Yes, you have to be trusted to be able to upload, but you dont have to have upload abilities to be able to be trusted. No. I merely consider voting rights to require more trust than merely uploading a random package to Sid that can be NMU'd or removed el rapidemento. Casting the deciding vote that chages a foundation document, man, that is worth something. I would not be fundamentally opposed to restricting voting rights to a subset of people who can upload. But you need to be at least as trusted as people who can upload in order to vote -- and having your key in the keyring and entry in db.d.o is a nice way to implement that. manoj -- We're all looking for a woman who can sit in a mini-skirt and talk philosophy, executing both with confidence and style. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
On 4/7/06, Micah Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. By your argument, then the USA should give all its citizens access to our nuclear arsenal, launch codes, etc. because we trust them to have a say in deciding how the government is run. Hmm, I see, you see yourself as government. That would explain the dictatorial thinking as every governship tends to enslave the governed people. You should think of yourself as a representative of the users instead of their master. I wonder where did this go Our priorities are our users and free software. Probably, you forgot, but you are talking about Debian's users here in general and constant contributors here. 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. There are many people in my organization that I trust completely, who do not have root on our boxes. They dont have root because of a number of very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with trust in other areas. Your point being? Please talk about Debian, not some organization of yours. The way you conduct your buisness does not affect Debian, or at least it shouldn't. Your rigid definition of trust = upload don't make sense to me. Yes, you have to be trusted to be able to upload, but you dont have to have upload abilities to be able to be trusted. Somehow, your argument is twisted. Nobody said that in order to trust someone, we should let him upload and see what will that person do, but quite the oposite was said - once you trust, upload should be fine, without abuses. -- Regards, EddyP = Imagination is more important than knowledge A.Einstein
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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? No, but if I have problem, I read the documentation that applies to my case. I think if you're unsure if the NM process is right for you, reading the documentation for the NM process is a good idea. And, if you're still unsure, you can ask the relevant people. If *you* think that this documentation is irrelevant for the NM process, you're free to submit patches. Until then, I'd prefer if you would not reply in a purely polemic way, as your contribution to actually solve the problem isn't identifiable. 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. I did, but I'm not sending status reports about private conversations. Anyway, I know what (some) people doing documentation and/or translation work have perceived as problem - in my rewrite of the NM docs, I tried to bear in mind what had been criticized before, as the old version didn't speak about tasks beside package maintainance before. This has changed. Naturally, those docs are mainly speaking about the NM process as applicant doing packaging work. The reason for this is quite simple - more than 95% of the people expressing their wish to join do packaging work. Not really a helpful reply style, is this? Yep, you haven't been helpful at all. Marc -- BOFH #374: Its the InterNIC's fault. pgpxkkq90IAJ8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
El viernes, 7 de abril de 2006 a las 19:27:52 +0900, JC Helary escribía: Because translators mostly don't maintain translations but plainly contribute translations. Ie. Translators mainly _translate_. What do you call translation maintenance anyway ? Well, after a translation is made, there may be errors in it. Or the program is updated so there are new/modified/deleted strings, so the translation must be updated. -- Jacobo Tarrío | http://jacobo.tarrio.org/ -- 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
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Eddy Petrişor wrote: On 4/7/06, Micah Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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. By your argument, then the USA should give all its citizens access to our nuclear arsenal, launch codes, etc. because we trust them to have a say in deciding how the government is run. Hmm, I see, you see yourself as government. That would explain the dictatorial thinking as every governship tends to enslave the governed people. This is a very surprising misunderstanding of what I wrote. I do not see myself as government, I do not see Debian as government. Additionally, I do not see where you are seeing dictatorial thinking in what I wrote, in fact, I am starting to wonder how you can see so clearly what I am thinking, perhaps your surveillance equipment has given you information about my thoughts that I have not yet thought, but I will? What is particularly suprising is that you are attacking me viciously, when I believe that we have the same views on this subject, however you have extrapolated meanings far beyond what I said through a process of misunderstanding what I actually wrote, to think I am actually against you. You should think of yourself as a representative of the users instead of their master. My message disagrees with the original poster's, which means that I think that more people should get a say in how we conduct the project's business, not less. I wonder where did this go Our priorities are our users and free software. Probably, you forgot, but you are talking about Debian's users here in general and constant contributors here. 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. There are many people in my organization that I trust completely, who do not have root on our boxes. They dont have root because of a number of very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with trust in other areas. Your point being? Please talk about Debian, not some organization of yours. The way you conduct your buisness does not affect Debian, or at least it shouldn't. Please dont tell me what I can and cannot talk about, I thought you were against dictatorial repression? If you want to talk about dictatorial, repression, then we can talk business, but I am not talking about business. I do not consider Debian to be a business, nor the organizations I work with. I think its completely reasonable to speak of other organizations in order to compare them with Debian. We dont live in a vacuum. My point is that someone who does work for debian does not need to have the ability to upload in order to be part of debian in some sort of 'officially' enfranchised manner. I think it is completely sane to have official debian people who do not have upload access. Your rigid definition of trust = upload don't make sense to me. Yes, you have to be trusted to be able to upload, but you dont have to have upload abilities to be able to be trusted. Somehow, your argument is twisted. Nobody said that in order to trust someone, we should let him upload and see what will that person do, but quite the oposite was said - once you trust, upload should be fine, without abuses. The point is that people do not need upload access to be officially part of Debian. There is no reason for people to have upload access, unless they are doing uploads. Tell me a reason someone should have upload access if they are not doing uploads, and I will consider changing my mind. The reason people give, time and again, for why we shouldn't bring anyone else into Debian even if they have a long history of doing good work for the organization that has nothing to do with uploading, is that it would be a bad idea to give those people upload access. So, we dont give them upload access, but we allow them into the organization. If at some point they need upload access, they will have an easier chance of obtaining it I would think. Micah -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFENu6B9n4qXRzy1ioRAvPEAKCNMXky7BpG22p6oMv8gaWOhrlFuQCgpGEs 1Gru/saKD6esyUkAZ9ZIa1o= =H7Y+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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 Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 06:48:27AM -0400, Benjamin Seidenberg wrote: Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: 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 TS 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 I'm in the NM process. I'm done with part 1 of TS and still have to do part 2, which includes that question. I don't know the answer to it. To find the answer, I'll have to do research. I'll probably read a lot about libraries while finding the answer, since it's a topic I don't know much about. I don't think the question is designed so much as to test whether I know about library compile options as my ability to do research and to process, understand and utilize the information I find. I think that Debian and the NM process don't care about how well you know compile time options from memory, but that you have the skill to learn new skills and pieces of information as you need them. That's a general skill, and can only be tested by more specific questions. Just my $0.02, Benjamin Seidenberg PS: If anyone wants to share the answer, reply by private mail. ;-) Hi Ben, I just finished reading a pdf created for Debconf 5[0], and it says what both you and Jeroen say: it is there as a test to see how you handle an unknown problem and if you can use resources like google, people, man page, etc. to find an answer and that it doesnt have any direct usefullness to most developers especially if they work in scripting languages. I would be interested to see a parallel test for translators, artist, legal consultants,etc. Maybe translate a man page from Modern English to Shakespearian English or Cevante's Spanish? x-) Cheers, Kev [0] The Debian New Maintainer Process: History and Aims Hanna Wallach, Moray Allan, Dafydd Harries [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] June 15, 2005 [google to find the url] -- | .''`. == 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
On 4/8/06, Micah Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By your argument, then the USA should give all its citizens access to our nuclear arsenal, launch codes, etc. because we trust them to have a say in deciding how the government is run. Hmm, I see, you see yourself as government. That would explain the dictatorial thinking as every governship tends to enslave the governed people. This is a very surprising misunderstanding of what I wrote. I do not see myself as government, I do not see Debian as government. From you message I understood you looked at uploading rights as the path to absolute war or dominion over foreigners or domestic population (you compared WMD with upload rights)... Additionally, I do not see where you are seeing dictatorial thinking in what I wrote, in then you let to be understood that people should not have a word in the way the govern does its job (we trust them to have a say in deciding how the government is run). For me that looks like a dictatorship definition, if you don't allow the people say anything. Sadly, this is how Debian is conducting votes currently (they do not represent the users, but themselves), so from this point of view this looks like you are in favor of keeping non mainatiners outside. It is true that you didn't said something like that explicitly, but that's how it resulted from the explained reasoning. fact, I am starting to wonder how you can see so clearly what I am thinking, perhaps your surveillance equipment has given you information about my thoughts that I have not yet thought, but I will? Yes, of course, but unfortunately, now I will have to kill you :) What is particularly suprising is that you are attacking me viciously, when I believe that we have the same views on this subject, however you That was not al all clear from your message... in fact the opposite was, otoh. have extrapolated meanings far beyond what I said through a process of misunderstanding what I actually wrote, to think I am actually against you. Taking this mail into account, yes. I'm sorry for doing that. Maybe I should cool down and not get too angry when I feel people are stubborn and refuse progress (because I might be having a wrong idea) You should think of yourself as a representative of the users instead of their master. My message disagrees with the original poster's, which means that I think that more people should get a say in how we conduct the project's business, not less. Yes, you wanted to say that people getting in should not be granted upload rights, although voting rights are ok, while Manoj was stating that if we trust people that much that we allow them to vote, upload rights can be given with the confidence they will not abuse it. In other words, you regard upload rights higher than vote (at first sight, but in fact you are stating that upload rights should be given on a need basis), while he is doing the inverse, stating that vote is more important that upload. So, AFAICT, you were not contradicting him, but stating another thing, while it looked to me that you don't agree. I wonder where did this go Our priorities are our users and free software. Probably, you forgot, but you are talking about Debian's users here in general and constant contributors here. 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. There are many people in my organization that I trust completely, who do not have root on our boxes. They dont have root because of a number of very obvious reasons that have nothing to do with trust in other areas. Your point being? Please talk about Debian, not some organization of yours. The way you conduct your buisness does not affect Debian, or at least it shouldn't. Please dont tell me what I can and cannot talk about, I thought you were against dictatorial repression? If you want to talk about dictatorial, repression, then we can talk business, but I am not talking about I was pointing out that external examples might not be the best idea. I could give you an example of a bad organisation, but thta might not be relevant in the debian context because other rules apply. My point is that someone who does work for debian does not need to have the ability to upload in order to be part of debian in some sort of 'officially' enfranchised manner. I think it is completely sane to have official debian people who do not have upload access. Yes, that might be true, but a NU (new uploader) process should not appear in the path to get those rights when needed. I suspect that from a pragmatic POV, giving upload rights imediately is better, but I might be wrong. Somehow, your argument is twisted. Nobody said that in order to trust someone, we should let him upload and see what will that person do, but quite the oposite was said - once you trust, upload should be fine, without
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 09:39:15PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit JC Helary [EMAIL PROTECTED] Which makes Maintainer unsuitble for translation maintainers how, exactly? Because translators mostly don't maintain translations but plainly contribute translations. A translator whose general modus operandi is leave his translation unmaintained once it is written should not become a voting member of Debian anyway - not any more than a packager who leaves his package unmaintained once it is uploaded. Hi Henning, so if a translator will commit to 'maintaing' a particular package translation, would that be a demonstration of the same commitment to the 'project' like software package maintaing and could then lead to him/her being a DD? Maybe make the translations be in a seperate package so that they can have names associated to them and lead to the translator being 'responsble' to our users and maintain a real packages? (of course this would never happen for many reasons-size,splitting things up,etc.) moon-buggy-msg-es_ES, moon-bubby-msg-fr_FR,... 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
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 PetriÅor 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. 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. I reviewed the last year of New Maintainers reports and found 7+2+2+1+1+5+1+4+2+11 = 36 new maintainers, but only one seemed clearly a translator/writer and there were four that I'm not sure about (package teams make it hard to tell sometimes). We've thoroughly queered the pitch now, but how many translators or documenters believed they could go through NM? (There are the other general concerns about NM too, such as an average of 200 days waiting for DAM at present.) So maybe what we need to do is to rename NM to NC (new contributor) with subpages detailing the differnet TS for the different classes of contributors. How about calling it New Developer if that's what it should be? Thanks, -- 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
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 TS 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 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
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 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
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
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 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
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 TS 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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 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 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
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
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]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
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
quote who=Henning Makholm date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:32:26PM +0200 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
quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:13:30AM -0500 On 4 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill spake thusly: quote who=Wouter Verhelst date=Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 08:58:57AM +0200 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
quote who=Steve Langasek date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:30:46AM -0700 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
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
On 6 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill told this: quote who=Steve Langasek date=Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 02:30:46AM -0700 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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
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
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
* Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2006:04:06 15:35 -0400]: quote who=Henning Makholm date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:32:26PM +0200 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
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
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
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
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
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 TS 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
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 TS 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
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] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
Scripsit Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] quote who=Henning Makholm date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:32:26PM +0200 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 http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step4 which clearly indicates that the TS 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
On Thu, 06 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill wrote: quote who=Henning Makholm date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:32:26PM +0200 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 TS 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
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: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now, if there are people like that who are not DD's, the question we must ask, is wjy are they not DD's? If they are putting in the work, and have the same commitment as a DD does, even if they do not package stuff, why is the project not treating them as first class members? The Debian New Maintainer process is a series of required proceedings to become a Debian Developer. -- http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint How can someone who is not a package maintainer become a developer, if becoming a developer requires being a maintainer? 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 Are there other delegates beside the NM ones admitting DDs? Or something else? Confusedly, -- 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Now, if there are people like that who are not DD's, the question we must ask, is wjy are they not DD's? If they are putting in the work, and have the same commitment as a DD does, even if they do not package stuff, why is the project not treating them as first class members? The Debian New Maintainer process is a series of required proceedings to become a Debian Developer. -- http://www.debian.org/devel/join/newmaint How can someone who is not a package maintainer become a developer, if becoming a developer requires being a maintainer? By maintaining documentation, translations or infrastructure. Marc -- BOFH #213: Change your language to Finnish. pgp3CsNiYlVGT.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
On 4/5/06, MJ Ray [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can someone who is not a package maintainer become a developer, if becoming a developer requires being a maintainer? Not quite, if you contribue to different areas with your effort, you can bexom a DD, see NM page. -- Regards, EddyP = Imagination is more important than knowledge A.Einstein
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 09:43:57PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:36:58PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: Scripsit Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's argueably the most important right that is reserved for developers but it does not necessary stand to reason that it should be reserved only for those who engage in development. I'd like to see those who have made long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to Debian enfranchised. How is making long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to Debian _not_ engaging in development? just to clarify, does 'engaging in development' equate to 'doing software related stuff' or could it include 'helping to improve the Debian organization in other ways'? As far as I'm aware, everything in Debian is software-related stuff in that it all exists to enable and support the creation of a free operating system. Hi Henning, I see 'open source' as a means to create software. I see 'free software' as a means to create software and a community. Part of that community involves 'technical support' through ML's, IRC channels, writing DOCS, HOWTO's, WIKI's, Installfests, Conferences, because these contribute to Debian continuing to exist and grow. This is one reason why I would like to see Debian at least poll their opinion even if they never become enfranchised. Also, ML's and IRC are the place users go before or instead of emailing the program author and complaining, so at least in some way we do help lessen the maintainers load and do support for his/her app. Obviously some of us do one email worth and some have done years worth. Also, I know that I and others always encourage users to submit bug report and install popcon, again this help debian. Imagine if debian had no ML or IRC, how would the maintainers deal with 100's of supports request? I was just reading something about creating a FLOSS project (by Mako) and thinking that Debian plays a unique role is the floss world. While most projects are created to 'scratch an itch'. Debian takes on the additional task of i18n and l10n while most upstream dont need to/want to/have the resources to. This makes translators an important part of the Debian community and they contributes to the further adoption of floss worldwide. 'software-related stuff' sounds ambigous. I'd love to see an enumerated list of what that represents. 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 | -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFEM4cCv8UcC1qRZVMRAsn7AJ0R8oGOuGecncsIxcheBLyXIx/NiwCgjHAv dcEUXQsEjk+yuCO21dxafYw= =YeO3 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- 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 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). But no, what really happens is that every year or so, there is some mild flamewar - coincidentally (?) always around the time of a DPL election - about how things should be better and why are we not allowed to vote. And then things are magically silent again for about 10 months. In the end my conclusion is that most translators are quite happy with their current status. They know their work is appreciated and in general they get the support and access rights they need through the huge efforts of the i18n coordinators. The same goes for documentation writers (although there is a distinct lack of those) and website maintainers (same; hi Jutta). How do I dare say this? Simple: I _did_ enter Debian as a translator / documentation writer only last year. My NM process was one of the shortest in recent history (6 months), partly because the TS part was reduced, partly because I had a lot of support, but mostly through showing commitment and jumping in where help was needed. In short: if you want to be a Developer, stop pussyfooting around, find an Advocate, talk things over with him/her and apply! Write a mail to the Front Desk to make it clear that you do want to enter the project as a translator or documentation writer. The main thing is to show commitment to the project. What helps a lot is being willing to work (and having done work!) on other areas than just translating your own language. Be prepared to go into discussion with your Account Manager if you feel (s)he is setting too technical tasks. But also be prepared to answer quite a few questions about what suites are, how packages move from one to the other, how the BTS works, etc. After all, you are entering Debian, so you should know at least the basics of its infrastructure and how to use it (or at least, how not to abuse it). Debian is a distribution consisting of packages, so naturally its organizational focus is on people who create those packages. But if you want to get in on another basis, you can get in. If you don't think it's worth the effort, then just be happy with the contribution you already do make and know that it is very much appreciated. If you don't want to learn the basic technical infrastructure of the project, than maybe it is better that you are not a Developer but instead let the i18n coordinators take the responsibility for that. pgpeVEplj5Hhu.pgp Description: PGP signature
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]
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
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. 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. 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. As always, it is much more likely that some kind of rights split will be made when and if it becomes necessary, than that procedures and infrastructure are changed beforehand. Personally I now make quite heavy use of my upload rights, not only for the installer but also for occasional NMUs for other packages. Of course I'm very careful that I double check the changes I make and I'm a long way from being confident enough to start a package from scratch. One part of the DD process is to check if people are responsible, aware of their own limitations and willing and able to check documentation or ask for help when they reach those limits in their work. Once you are a DD, your commitment to the project will probably make sure you don't abuse the infrastructure and there probably will be no real need to differentiate between how people became a DD. Also, even real packagers foul up sometimes... Conclusion: there is no need to deal with anything; translators that want to become DD should just apply. If during or after their NM process it is discovered that adaptations are needed, it will happen automatically (especially if translation DDs themselves become involved in the NM process as AMs for other translators). pgpj9XWxCsBEw.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 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 pgp2SuxDICVXJ.pgp Description: PGP signature
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 Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 12:45:50AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: On 3 Apr 2006, Wouter Verhelst outgrape: I don't have any problems per se with non-DD contributors being allowed to vote on matters of purely technical substance. I have a problem with _anyone_ voting on a matter of purely technical substance. I was referring to Constitution points 4.1.3 and 4.1.4. Most votes that would fall under those would seem to be technical to me. Of course, that doesn't mean they _have_ to be technical. Additionally, with 'technical' I also meant things that relate to technicalities in the Project's organization, which is not necessarily the same thing as technical stuff relating to computers. Though I should've been more careful in my choice of words on a forum of highly technical people ;-) -- 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
On Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 07:27:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote: Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] and b) there is no clear-cut and objective criteria currently to identify those people who do make regular contributions without being a developer. Unless something has changed since I last looked, the NM process was hardly clear-cut or objective either. No, but signing uploads is. Put differently, here are a number of questions you should answer for this to have merit: * What should a non-DD contributor be doing before we consider him/her eligible to vote? Making a worthwhile contribution to the project. Interestingly, self-censorship by non-members allows projects such as Indymedia to function with much weaker membership qualification than debian. There's a major difference between a Bad Guy(TM) intruding Indymedia and doing all kinds of bad things, and a Bad Guy(TM) intruding Debian and doing all kinds of bad things. At least in my opinion, there is; YMMV. * How should we link their key to their identity, so that we *know* a given key belongs to some non-DD contributor? For DDs, we know because we've seen their uploads. For contributors, we don't see their uploads, so we can only know through key signing, which is a weaker criterion (unless they sign their contributions with their GPG key). We should see submissions by contributors and those could be signed. How would you suggest to implement that? * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to vote on just about anything? If not, what types of votes should they be allowed to vote on, and what types of votes should they not be allowed to vote on? Make this a clear rule, so that you can apply it to any possible and impossible thing we might have an idea about voting on. - Appoint or recall the Project Leader. - Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. - Override any decision by the Technical Committee. I have no real objection to the above. - Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. I do have a problem with this one. As part of NM, you formally agree to uphold the Social Contract and the DFSG. This is what gives us a common philosophical ground. Therefore, I don't think we want people to co-decide what our philosophical position is regarding some practical subject if they haven't gone through NM. Even if, by the fact that they contribute, it can logically be deduced that they probably do agree with our philosophical position. I exclude the power to amend the constitution, which they've agreed to even less than developers. All of the others affect the work done by contributors in some way, so I think there's an argument for giving them a voice. Maybe one or more of the above should be subdivided, but I'm not sure. The power to amend the constitution would also affect their work; so I don't think that should be an argument. * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to propose General Resolutions? Only ones that they can vote on. Yeah, that'd make sense. * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to nominate themselves as DPL? No, it should require a number of seconds. Even then, personally I'm not convinced. [...] -- 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
quote who=Henning Makholm date=Tue, Apr 04, 2006 at 02:36:58PM +0200 How is making long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to Debian _not_ engaging in development? If you think that Debian's long-time pro-bono legal counsel is engaging in development, I think we're just getting bogged down in semantics. I'm saying we should be able to take significant and sustained non-technical contributions. Regards, Mako -- Benjamin Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mako.cc/ -- 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 4 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill said: quote who=Manoj Srivastava date=Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 03:23:35AM -0500 The way I see it, Debian produces an modular OS. the modularity of the product is, by and large[0], packages. .. snip .. [0]. There are people who contribute to Debian other than as package maintainers, but they do have the same rights of uploading as anyone else. As other have pointed out, many package maintainers can't vote either. In my nomenclature, people who upload the packages are the maintainers -- even if the majority of the work has been done by others, like the uipstream author. As far as Debian is concerned, the person sho signed off on the upload is the one attesting to the quality of the package. Also, they are the only ones we can actually trust we can verify the identity of (there is a reason for the web of trust), 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. People who don't upload anymore keep their privileges in order to vote. I beg to differ here. I think that rights and priviledges accorded to full membership are done correctly, the steep cirve for becoming a maintainer keeps the riff-raff and troublemakers out (the investment of time and effort does not meet the retrn-on-investment thresholds for most crackers, for instance). Branden had an interesting idea of fixing the second big by allowing people to simply opt-out of upload privileges through db.debian.org. Debian has a *very* poor recognizing non-packaging contributions to the community with enfranchisement of any sort. That is a bug I would be willing to accept as such. manoj -- It is Texas law that when two trains meet each other at a railroad crossing, each shall come to a full stop, and neither shall proceed until the other has gone. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
Wouter Verhelst [EMAIL PROTECTED] They don't need to be in the web of trust to affect those issues. They can just step in and do something. This is often overlooked as a form of democracy. It's a bit brutal, but can be useful. [...] and b) there is no clear-cut and objective criteria currently to identify those people who do make regular contributions without being a developer. Unless something has changed since I last looked, the NM process was hardly clear-cut or objective either. Put differently, here are a number of questions you should answer for this to have merit: * What should a non-DD contributor be doing before we consider him/her eligible to vote? Making a worthwhile contribution to the project. Interestingly, self-censorship by non-members allows projects such as Indymedia to function with much weaker membership qualification than debian. * How should we link their key to their identity, so that we *know* a given key belongs to some non-DD contributor? For DDs, we know because we've seen their uploads. For contributors, we don't see their uploads, so we can only know through key signing, which is a weaker criterion (unless they sign their contributions with their GPG key). We should see submissions by contributors and those could be signed. * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to vote on just about anything? If not, what types of votes should they be allowed to vote on, and what types of votes should they not be allowed to vote on? Make this a clear rule, so that you can apply it to any possible and impossible thing we might have an idea about voting on. - Appoint or recall the Project Leader. - Override any decision by the Project Leader or a Delegate. - Override any decision by the Technical Committee. - Issue, supersede and withdraw nontechnical policy documents and statements. I exclude the power to amend the constitution, which they've agreed to even less than developers. All of the others affect the work done by contributors in some way, so I think there's an argument for giving them a voice. Maybe one or more of the above should be subdivided, but I'm not sure. * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to propose General Resolutions? Only ones that they can vote on. * Should non-DD contributors be allowed to nominate themselves as DPL? No, it should require a number of seconds. Kevin Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] But if there was a vote on say 'should debian create a new irc channel for mutt users' or 'what applications should be translated first for the urdu desktop?' or 'what is the number one thing that debian users want for etch?' Then would a user need to be in the Debian web of trust to affect those issues? What would be required, short of joining the web of trust? All of the above seem like JFDI (Just F Do It) issues, not requiring a vote. Frans Pop [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] If you do get more involved, you may want=20 to read the Debian Constitution and Social Contract too. That would have=20 given you the correct information regarding the democratic processes=20 within Debian. Except for the situations where they are ignored. I thought some DDs claimed never to have agreed to those processes because they predate the NM process: am I mistaken? Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] Far from it being a known bug, I don't think it is a bug at all. There has to be some criteria for allowing people decision making powers in the project (conducting the vote on slashdot would be unacceptable to most people). There is a space between only uploaders may vote and everyone may vote. Also, I believe non-uploading contributors also have some responsiblity for the operating system debian distributes, so they should have some decision-making role. Arguably, they already do, but what weight should that role carry? [...] Becoming a DD also entails a level of commitment tot he project that a casual contributor has not made. Is anyone suggesting casual contributors get the vote? There are some long-term contributors who do not have the vote and seem unlikely to get through the current NM process: it's hard enough for package maintainers with years in the free software scene who get left in DAMnation for many months while they are quizzed repeatedly over whether they know the difference between free beer and free speech. It may be that there needs to be clearer information for l10n teams about who can become DDs and how, but I thought there was resistance to non-uploading DDs. Did I misunderstand? Best wishes, -- 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
Jorgen Schaefer wrote: Helen Faulkner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It seems to me that we are already in a situation where only the people who are really interested in, or informed about, a particular question are voting on it. And that's bad because ...? Oh, I wasn't suggesting it was bad. I think it's good. I think we'd see the same behaviour if non-DD contributors were allowed to vote. They would vote on the things they know something about and ignore the things they don't know about. The overal effect would be to increase the number of informed people voting and to get the viewpoints of people who are contributing to Debian in non-maintainer ways, which I think would be entirely positive. Helen -- 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
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? -- Henning Makholm However, the fact that the utterance by Epimenides of that false sentence could imply the existence of some Cretan who is not a liar is rather unsettling. -- 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
Scripsit Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3 Apr 2006, Wouter Verhelst outgrape: I don't have any problems per se with non-DD contributors being allowed to vote on matters of purely technical substance. I have a problem with _anyone_ voting on a matter of purely technical substance. According to the Constitution, members of the TC do. -- Henning Makholm Hele toget raslede imens Sjælland fór forbi.
Re: Third call for votes for the debian project leader election 2006
Scripsit Benj. Mako Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] It's argueably the most important right that is reserved for developers but it does not necessary stand to reason that it should be reserved only for those who engage in development. I'd like to see those who have made long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to Debian enfranchised. How is making long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to Debian _not_ engaging in development? -- Henning Makholm The burning swoosh shall be our emblem, and we shall laugh in the face of trademark lawyers. -- 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
In other words, those who are responsible, decide. I agree. So let's divest of their voting privileges those DDs who don't contribute enough. We have several hundred of those. -- 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 4 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill spake thusly: quote who=Wouter Verhelst date=Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 08:58:57AM +0200 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? 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. This is not what franchise in Debian entitles you to. Since Debian votes are conducted through GPG-signed mails and regular contributors aren't part of the Debian web of trust, this is more than a convenience issue. Note that Debian Developers without an active key in the keyring can't vote, either. 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. Ultimately, the powers weilded by voting members affect me. I am willing to listen to directions from my peers, I am less likely to be inclined to take direction from anyone who has submitted a random patch to the BTS. I am also unlikely to want to take direction from anyone who has not demonstrated a modicum of commitment to the project. There is Now, if there are people like that who are not DD's, the question we must ask, is wjy are they not DD's? If they are putting in the work, and have the same commitment as a DD does, even if they do not package stuff, why is the project not treating them as first class members? 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. manoj -- There's no future in time travel. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
On 4 Apr 2006, Henning Makholm verbalised: Scripsit Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] On 3 Apr 2006, Wouter Verhelst outgrape: I don't have any problems per se with non-DD contributors being allowed to vote on matters of purely technical substance. I have a problem with _anyone_ voting on a matter of purely technical substance. According to the Constitution, members of the TC do. I'll try dotting the i's and crossing the t's with this analogy: You and I can't vote to decide what is the law, what falls afoul of the law, and what does not. The supreme court justices do vote. See the difference? manoj -- Many a bum show has been saved by the flag. George M. Cohan Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
On 4 Apr 2006, Benj. Mako Hill stated: quote who=Steve Langasek date=Mon, Apr 03, 2006 at 12:15:15AM -0700 Most developers seem to agree that there are bugs in our process for integrating new members into the project, but that's not the same as saying that non-DDs should be allowed to vote Clearly not. voting rights are one of the few privileges that are reserved only for developers, and arguably the most important. It's argueably the most important right that is reserved for developers but it does not necessary stand to reason that it should be reserved only for those who engage in development. You know, in my new country (I've just joined the enfranchised ranks here). Even my new country, far more democratic than Debian ewver shall be, does not give franchise based on work people do. If it did, trust fund babies would have no vote, and the illegal migrant workers would. When I got my citizenship, it took an pledge of allegiance before things were stamped, and I had to go through an NM PP section with a immigration official to see if I knew the philosophy and practical details of how the government worked. I also had a back ground and identity check done, to enter the web of trust. Seems like people on -project as asking L1 visa holders [0] to get a right to vote, no questions asked I'd like to see those who have made long-term, sustained, and significant contributions to Debian enfranchised. That could mean broadening the category of developer through changes to NM or it could also mean another enfranchised category of contributor. That's what I read as the argument at the core of this thread -- but perhaps I was just projecting. I think we need to make them full, undifferentiated, members of the project. Which means going through a process where we know they adhere to our foundation documents, and spend time with a trusted developer (AM) so we have a better idea of who they are, and can have a modicum of trust in that they do not sabotage the project. Trust. Commitment. Responsibility. manoj [0] temporary foreign workers working for a local company in the country to continue to do the job they did for the same company in their home country) -- wolf, n.: A man who knows all the ankles. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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
On 4 Apr 2006, Clint Adams stated: In other words, those who are responsible, decide. I agree. So let's divest of their voting privileges those DDs who don't contribute enough. We have several hundred of those. Please help out the MIA process. It would really be appreciated. manoj -- QOTD: It was so cold last winter that I saw a lawyer with his hands in his own pockets. Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/ 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]
