Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Kurt, my inclination was to consider this change as falling under Constitution §A.1.3 as a change that does not alter the meaning of the proposal. Since you don't actually need seconders under §4.2.1, and you are the proposer of the original option, I don't think it's necessary (unless a seconder wants to propose the original proposal as a second amendment.) And in any case, any change is allowed by the original proposer of a particular amendment; it just resets the discussion period unless it meets A.1.6. [Though one of these days, we probably should fix up A.1; it's language doesn't properly promote amendments to resolutions (options?) to be voted on.] Don Armstrong -- The sheer ponderousness of the panel's opinion [...] refutes its thesis far more convincingly than anything I might say. The panel's labored effort to smother the Second Amendment by sheer body weight has all the grace of a sumo wrestler trying to kill a rattlesnake by sitting on it---and is just as likely to succeed. -- Alex Kozinski, Dissenting in Silveira v. Lockyer (CV-00-00411-WBS p5983-4) http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916171006.gn28...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote:
Even better, now with attachments!
There is yet another pronoun I have missed. Please find a patch
attached.
Applied (wording / punctuation fix), thanks!
New current text is attached.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system.
To that end, the project benefits from various types of contributions,
including, but not limited to: package maintenance, translations,
infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and
fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice,
quality assurance, etc.
The Debian project acknowledges that:
* To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of
other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable.
* Active contributors of non-packaging work, who share Debian values
and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the
opportunity to become Debian Developers.
The Debian project, therefore, invites the Debian Account Managers to:
* Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become
Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive.
* Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of
non-packaging work as Debian Developers.
* Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of
non-packaging work, who get accepted as Debian Developers, to
participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian
infrastructure.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:40:07AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: I'm hereby introducing two changes: a) dropping the name Debian Contributor (attachment 0001-remove-the-term-Debian-Contributor.patch) b) fixing punctuation as suggested by Kumar Appaiah [1], thanks! (attachment 0002-Add-punctuation-and-fix-some-pronouns.patch) The text applying both patches is attached as well (attachment debian-contributors.txt). Everything has been pushed to [2]. I believe (b) falls for sure under §A.1.6. I believe that also (a) falls under §A.1.6, but it's your call. *If* you disagree with that interpretation, I hereby formally introduce it as an amendment and, as the GR proposer, I hereby also accept it. I believe the text has the same intentions as the orignal, but that it does alter the meaning. Which means I'm resetting the discussion period. It would be nice that people could confirm that they have no problem with this changed text so that there is no doubt that this text has enough seconds. Kurt signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On su, 2010-09-19 at 11:33 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote: Even better, now with attachments! There is yet another pronoun I have missed. Please find a patch attached. Applied (wording / punctuation fix), thanks! New current text is attached. Seconded (sha1sum of attachment was 3dc10c8dcee25fd9af5d8895ad4bd2d9176b9397). signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi! Am 19.09.2010 17:06, schrieb Lars Wirzenius: On su, 2010-09-19 at 11:33 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote: Even better, now with attachments! There is yet another pronoun I have missed. Please find a patch attached. Applied (wording / punctuation fix), thanks! New current text is attached. Seconded (sha1sum of attachment was 3dc10c8dcee25fd9af5d8895ad4bd2d9176b9397). Seconded, with the same sha1sum ;) Best regards, Alexander -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkyWKDoACgkQBxd04ADYzRYnhwCaAzR7Z7wxRuoVCSQOpST2vriP LDYAoJYYajQkVKAmdeYhDNtkOq0FU2g4 =tJIB -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c96283a.8050...@debian.org
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Le dimanche 19 septembre 2010 11:33:24, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 09:36:50AM -0500, Kumar Appaiah wrote: Even better, now with attachments! There is yet another pronoun I have missed. Please find a patch attached. Applied (wording / punctuation fix), thanks! --- The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system. To that end, the project benefits from various types of contributions, including, but not limited to: package maintenance, translations, infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice, quality assurance, etc. The Debian project acknowledges that: * To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable. * Active contributors of non-packaging work, who share Debian values and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the opportunity to become Debian Developers. The Debian project, therefore, invites the Debian Account Managers to: * Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive. * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of non-packaging work, who get accepted as Debian Developers, to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. --- Seconded, again. -- Damien - Debian Developper http://wiki.debian.org/DamienRaudeMorvan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Hi! On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:33:24AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system. To that end, the project benefits from various types of contributions, including, but not limited to: package maintenance, translations, infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice, quality assurance, etc. The Debian project acknowledges that: * To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable. * Active contributors of non-packaging work, who share Debian values and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the opportunity to become Debian Developers. The Debian project, therefore, invites the Debian Account Managers to: * Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive. * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of non-packaging work, who get accepted as Debian Developers, to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. I second the above proposal. Thanks! Kumar -- We come to bury DOS, not to praise it. (Paul Vojta, vo...@math.berkeley.edu, paraphrasing a quote of Shakespeare) signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Sun, Sep 19, 2010 at 11:33:24AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system. To that end, the project benefits from various types of contributions, including, but not limited to: package maintenance, translations, infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice, quality assurance, etc. The Debian project acknowledges that: * To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable. * Active contributors of non-packaging work, who share Debian values and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the opportunity to become Debian Developers. The Debian project, therefore, invites the Debian Account Managers to: * Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive. * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of non-packaging work, who get accepted as Debian Developers, to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. Seconded. Ciao, Enrico -- GPG key: 4096R/E7AD5568 2009-05-08 Enrico Zini enr...@enricozini.org signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 06:42:18PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
Kurt, my inclination was to consider this change as falling under
Constitution §A.1.3 as a change that does not alter the meaning of the
proposal.
That would be A.1.6?
Yes, totally, sorry for the typo.
My question was basicly if you wanted to make that change
at that time. My interpretation is that you didn't propose
to change it at that time, but that you would do it at some
later time.
The question was which part of the constituion this would follow.
Fair enough.
I'm hereby introducing two changes:
a) dropping the name Debian Contributor
(attachment 0001-remove-the-term-Debian-Contributor.patch)
b) fixing punctuation as suggested by Kumar Appaiah [1], thanks!
(attachment 0002-Add-punctuation-and-fix-some-pronouns.patch)
The text applying both patches is attached as well (attachment
debian-contributors.txt). Everything has been pushed to [2].
I believe (b) falls for sure under §A.1.6.
I believe that also (a) falls under §A.1.6, but it's your call.
*If* you disagree with that interpretation, I hereby formally introduce
it as an amendment and, as the GR proposer, I hereby also accept it.
Cheers.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2010/09/msg00066.html
[2] http://git.debian.org/?p=dpl/dpl.git
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:40:07AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
I'm hereby introducing two changes:
Even better, now with attachments!
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system.
To that end, the project benefits from various types of contributions,
including, but not limited to: package maintenance, translations,
infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and
fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice,
quality assurance, etc.
The Debian project acknowledges that:
* To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of
other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable.
* Active contributors of non-packaging work, who share Debian values
and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the
opportunity to become Debian Developers.
The Debian project, therefore, invites the Debian Account Managers to:
* Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become
Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive.
* Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of
non-packaging work as Debian Developers.
* Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of
non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to
participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian
infrastructure.
From da645fd167c27eef5ae5876494a34b6e62c8ec10 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Stefano Zacchiroli z...@upsilon.cc
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 20:53:19 +0900
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] remove the term Debian Contributor
as discussed on -vote, starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2010/09/msg00054.html
---
gr/debian-contributors.txt | 15 ---
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gr/debian-contributors.txt b/gr/debian-contributors.txt
index 11e9192..88e5a7c 100644
--- a/gr/debian-contributors.txt
+++ b/gr/debian-contributors.txt
@@ -12,16 +12,17 @@ The Debian project acknowledges that:
* Active contributors of non-packaging work, which share Debian values
and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the
- opportunity to become Debian project members.
+ opportunity to become Debian Developers.
The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to:
* Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become
- Debian Developers without upload rights to the Debian archive. These
- new developers shall be recognized as Debian Contributors (DC).
+ Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive.
-* Establish procedures to evaluate and accept Debian Contributors.
+* Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of
+ non-packaging work as Debian Developers.
-* Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable Debian
- Contributors to participate in Debian decision making and to access
- Debian infrastructure.
+* Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of
+ non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to
+ participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian
+ infrastructure.
--
1.7.1
From 505f9a6f891fe5d8a0be43beff2bb8948448b864 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Kumar Appaiah a.ku...@alumni.iitm.ac.in
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:27:17 -0500
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Add punctuation and fix some pronouns.
---
gr/debian-contributors.txt |8
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gr/debian-contributors.txt b/gr/debian-contributors.txt
index 88e5a7c..9f148db 100644
--- a/gr/debian-contributors.txt
+++ b/gr/debian-contributors.txt
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system.
-To that end the project benefits from various types of contributions,
-including but not limited to: package maintenance, translations,
+To that end, the project benefits from various types of contributions,
+including, but not limited to: package maintenance, translations,
infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and
fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice,
quality assurance, etc.
@@ -10,11 +10,11 @@ The Debian project acknowledges that:
* To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of
other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable.
-* Active contributors of non-packaging work, which share Debian values
+* Active contributors of non-packaging work, who share Debian values
and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the
opportunity to become Debian Developers.
-The Debian project therefore
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:40:07AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: My question was basicly if you wanted to make that change at that time. My interpretation is that you didn't propose to change it at that time, but that you would do it at some later time. The question was which part of the constituion this would follow. That should be was not which. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100918100730.ga6...@roeckx.be
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Dear Zack, On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:56:32AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 11:40:07AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: I'm hereby introducing two changes: Even better, now with attachments! There is yet another pronoun I have missed. Please find a patch attached. Thanks! Kumar -- NEVER RESPOND TO CRITICAL PRESS. IT IS A GAME YOU CAN ONLY LOSE, AND IT MAKES US LOOK BAD. -- Bruce Perens From 487a42d9bed5280d5575f6f63bcd89aaa0b38055 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Kumar Appaiah a.ku...@alumni.iitm.ac.in Date: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:35:24 -0500 Subject: [PATCH] Fix another pronoun (`who' as opposed to `which' for `contribtuors') --- gr/debian-contributors.txt |2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/gr/debian-contributors.txt b/gr/debian-contributors.txt index 9f148db..7c28a84 100644 --- a/gr/debian-contributors.txt +++ b/gr/debian-contributors.txt @@ -23,6 +23,6 @@ The Debian project, therefore, invites the Debian Account Managers to: non-packaging work as Debian Developers. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of - non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to + non-packaging work, who get accepted as Debian Developers, to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. -- 1.7.1 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Hi, On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 06:52:02PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: In case these changes are regarded as more than editorial (which is your call, but I feel they are), the new proposal requires new seconds I'm not sure why you think the proposal requires seconds if it replaces an older proposal. As long as nobody objects it doesn't need seconds. Atleast that's my current interpretation, feel free to try and convince me otherwise. The existing seconds refer to the old text, and I believe that the changes do alter the meaning of the text. Simon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
I'll let the patch linger for a couple of days -- actually, I'll be away
for most part of tomorrow -- and then I'll apply it, posting a new
complete draft here shortly thereafter.
So I'm not considering this currently as an amendment.
Kurt, my inclination was to consider this change as falling under
Constitution §A.1.3 as a change that does not alter the meaning of the
proposal. Do you disagree with that interpretation? If so I can, as the
proposer, turn that change into a formal amendment and directly accept
it (under §A.1.1 and §A.1.2), offering then the opportunity to seconders
to disagree forking the text. I think it's in the best interest of all
of us not to fork two options for *this* specific reason and I think
§A.1.3 applies and it's the best way forward.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Hi, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:48:02PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I like that a lot more than the other wording, thus seconded. Please don't go and make this more confusing for me. As far as I can tell this wasn't meant to be amendment yet. He will probably accept this or something simular as amendment replacing the orignal text. So at that time I could put you down as someone that seconds that proposal. You now basicly seem to have created a second proposal. I'm not sure I can create a proposal without actually saying so. So no, not yet. :) Basically, there are now two versions of the text floating around, where only one has been proposed as a GR, and where the original proposer (Stefano) has the option to adopt the changes, and thus turn the second version into his proposal, dropping the first. In case these changes are regarded as more than editorial (which is your call, but I feel they are), the new proposal requires new seconds (well, technically, it doesn't if the DPL proposes the GR), so I'm adding mine, assuming that the changes are adopted. If they aren't, I'm inclined to formally proposing this as an alternate text, but I believe others will beat me to it anyway. This feels like an excellent round of [Name of our Leader]. Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916084552.ga2...@richter
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Le Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 02:03:01PM +0100, Matthew Johnson a écrit : OTOH, if we pass a GR that looks like we'll give them upload rights (because it just says they are DDs) and then they aren't given upload rights some people might feel upset that they voted for it. Just because it's not required doesn't mean it might not be a good idea to include it. Stefano's DPL platform is actually quite clear on the subject: We need to generalize the lessons learned from the DM process. We have a lot of potential valuable contributors out there. They just need better documentation about how to join. They simply demand something in exchange, to be proud of, that acknowledges their efforts. I do not have preconceptions on the different ways of achieving this (e.g. ACLs vs linearly increasing privileges), but we need to go in that direction. In doing so, we should also relax our implicit assumptions that only technical abilities matter in Debian. The best operating system is mainly, not only, made of software; it is also made of translations, graphics, musics, etc. I will push for more gradual and rewarding access paths to Debian. So if we vote for a GR that do not give a direction, it will be unsurprising that DAM and FD will implement a ‘gradual’ access to our facilities. But the important thing is that it will not be asked by the GR. After seeing the results of this choice, it will always be possible to change the procedure, especially if a later DPL is elected with a platform that goes more towards an equal access for all DDs. [Of course, I noticed that the GR is actually carefully worded to not decide anything, but only to invite. Still, I think that if it contains an invitation to not give upload access to DDs who do not maintain packages, it will be difficult ignore it.] I would love to vote for an amendement that invites DAM and FD to give a normal upload access to all DDs, but they are free to decline the invitation (and it is a good thing). I think that we need to compromise and move on, and I propose to do so by avoiding a wording that would make it difficult to change our choice on this subject later. Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916135151.ga23...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:51:51PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
Stefano's DPL platform is actually quite clear on the subject:
snip
After seeing the results of this choice, it will always be possible to
change the procedure, especially if a later DPL is elected with a
platform that goes more towards an equal access for all DDs.
I know you're very keen of this argument, but it has always been
unconvincing to me. It is not because DPL get elected on specific
platforms that they can assume the majority of people share *all* of
their content. It is generally *likely* that voters share most of the
content of the winner's platform, but there can still be controversial
points that are not appreciated by the majority of voters.
In fact, you can even imagine an election with only bad candidates, in
which voters vote following the discipline of I choose the candidate I
dislike the least more than that of I choose the candidate I like the
most. In such an hypothetical election, the content of the platform is
pretty much useless to understand what the project wants.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 04:08:50PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:40:09PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I'll let the patch linger for a couple of days -- actually, I'll be away for most part of tomorrow -- and then I'll apply it, posting a new complete draft here shortly thereafter. So I'm not considering this currently as an amendment. Kurt, my inclination was to consider this change as falling under Constitution §A.1.3 as a change that does not alter the meaning of the proposal. That would be A.1.6? Do you disagree with that interpretation? If so I can, as the proposer, turn that change into a formal amendment and directly accept it (under §A.1.1 and §A.1.2), offering then the opportunity to seconders to disagree forking the text. I think it's in the best interest of all of us not to fork two options for *this* specific reason and I think §A.1.3 applies and it's the best way forward. My question was basicly if you wanted to make that change at that time. My interpretation is that you didn't propose to change it at that time, but that you would do it at some later time. The question was which part of the constituion this would follow. I also want to avoid having to fork it. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916164218.ga21...@roeckx.be
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 10:45:52AM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: Hi, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:48:02PM +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote: I like that a lot more than the other wording, thus seconded. Please don't go and make this more confusing for me. As far as I can tell this wasn't meant to be amendment yet. He will probably accept this or something simular as amendment replacing the orignal text. So at that time I could put you down as someone that seconds that proposal. You now basicly seem to have created a second proposal. I'm not sure I can create a proposal without actually saying so. So no, not yet. :) Basically, there are now two versions of the text floating around, where only one has been proposed as a GR, and where the original proposer (Stefano) has the option to adopt the changes, and thus turn the second version into his proposal, dropping the first. In case these changes are regarded as more than editorial (which is your call, but I feel they are), the new proposal requires new seconds I'm not sure why you think the proposal requires seconds if it replaces an older proposal. As long as nobody objects it doesn't need seconds. Atleast that's my current interpretation, feel free to try and convince me otherwise. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916165202.ga21...@roeckx.be
Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On 15/09/10 at 12:08 +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Naming (raised by at least Luca and Lars [8,9]) == Ah, what a mess! Until a few minutes before posting the GR proposal, the text contained a s/Debian Members/non-uploading Debian Developers/ and before that several more s/// have been applied on drafts. So, believe me, I fully understand the puzzling about the name. Let's make it clear that the new role we are introducing is not something different than DDs from the POV of constitution. We are just saying that we accept as DDs (called in the constitution both developers and project members) people who contribute stuff other than packaging work. Those people will be Debian Developer, no question. The problem is that in practice we will *need* a name to distinguish on the basis of upload rights (e.g. imagine an IRC conversation on the topic of can you sponsor this upload of mine?). Either we propose a name while introducing the concept, or it will be chosen by folklore and I don't believe that would be wise. In principle, nothing stops us from leaving the name out of the GR and leave up to DAM to select one, as suggested by Luca [8]. The advantage of that is we will not tie our hands with a specific name. The drawback is that, will start to talk about the new role anyhow, without waiting for a proper name blessing. Considering all of the above, I thought that going for Debian Contributor was the better solution. If there is consensus in leaving the name out of the GR, I can apply back the above substitution. I consider that as something that do not alter the meaning of the GR and is hence something I can do without much disruption. If we go for DDs without upload rights, I think that we should be extremely careful about not transforming this new kind of DDs into second-class members of the project. A way to do that is to avoid giving them a name, and emphasize the fact that they are DDs, not another sub-kind of project members. The no upload rights part would just be a minor technical distinction. Another way to put it is, imagine you are a DC, and are writing your CV. What should you write about your status in Debian? Debian Contributor? Debian Developer? If we create the Debian Contributor term, then I'm sure that for many DCs, it will be difficult to write Debian Developer there (Imposter Syndrome, etc), even if that's what should really be written, since their contributions to Debian are not less important than those of other DDs. Just leaving it up to DAM to choose a term would not be enough to avoid that. IMHO, DDs without upload rights should not have any sexy name, and the distinction between them and DDs with upload rights should only be made where it's necessary. I don't think that the IRC conversation example you gave is a convincing one. It wouldn't hurt much to write I'm a DD without upload rights instead of I'm a Debian Contributor (it's only 6 characters more!). - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100915072659.ga11...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On ke, 2010-09-15 at 09:26 +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: If we go for DDs without upload rights, I think that we should be extremely careful about not transforming this new kind of DDs into second-class members of the project. A way to do that is to avoid giving them a name, and emphasize the fact that they are DDs, not another sub-kind of project members. The no upload rights part would just be a minor technical distinction. Another way to put it is, imagine you are a DC, and are writing your CV. What should you write about your status in Debian? Debian Contributor? Debian Developer? If we create the Debian Contributor term, then I'm sure that for many DCs, it will be difficult to write Debian Developer there (Imposter Syndrome, etc), even if that's what should really be written, since their contributions to Debian are not less important than those of other DDs. Just leaving it up to DAM to choose a term would not be enough to avoid that. IMHO, DDs without upload rights should not have any sexy name, and the distinction between them and DDs with upload rights should only be made where it's necessary. I don't think that the IRC conversation example you gave is a convincing one. It wouldn't hurt much to write I'm a DD without upload rights instead of I'm a Debian Contributor (it's only 6 characters more!). I fully agree with Lucas. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1284536165.2573.54.ca...@havelock
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On 09:26 Wed 15 Sep , Lucas Nussbaum wrote: If we go for DDs without upload rights, I think that we should be extremely careful about not transforming this new kind of DDs into second-class members of the project. A way to do that is to avoid giving them a name, and emphasize the fact that they are DDs, not another sub-kind of project members. The no upload rights part would just be a minor technical distinction. +1. I think we should not go to some kind of discrimination about terms. For example, people writing documentations are as importants as DDs but they don't need so much access than a DDs should need. A project is a whole and have members. Official members in Debian are called DD. And I think DD is a good choice since developer can be used in several contexts. For me, I see more the term developer as development inside and around the project. What we could have is. Case 1. === Debian Developer --- Unlimited upload access |- Documentation R/W access |- FTP-Master |- Release manager Case 2. === Debian Developer --- Upload access on personnal packages |- Documentation R/W access Case N. === Debian Developer --- access to ... |- access to ... I see a DD more as a project member instead of a specific member. To attribute rights we could have procedures like we have NM process for having Unlimited upload access. The documentation team could have some templates and follow contributors for attributing the DD status with Documentation R/W access. And all DD should have voting rights. Well it's just some ideas I have in mind and wanted to tell here. Maybe Im pushing things to far. Greetings, -- Xavier Oswald xosw...@debian.org GNU/Linux Debian Developer - http://www.debian.org/ GPG key ID: 0x464B8DE3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100915090146.ga12...@master
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:26:59AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: If we go for DDs without upload rights, I think that we should be extremely careful about not transforming this new kind of DDs into second-class members of the project. A way to do that is to avoid giving them a name, and emphasize the fact that they are DDs, not another sub-kind of project members. The no upload rights part would just be a minor technical distinction. Another way to put it is, imagine you are a DC, and are writing your CV. What should you write about your status in Debian? Debian Contributor? Debian Developer? If we create the Debian Contributor term, then I'm sure that for many DCs, it will be difficult to write Debian Developer there (Imposter Syndrome, etc), even if that's what should really be written, since their contributions to Debian are not less important than those of other DDs. Just leaving it up to DAM to choose a term would not be enough to avoid that. IMHO, DDs without upload rights should not have any sexy name, and the distinction between them and DDs with upload rights should only be made where it's necessary. Definitely. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com C++ ate my sanity -- Jon Rabone signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:26:59AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
If we go for DDs without upload rights, I think that we should be
extremely careful about not transforming this new kind of DDs into
second-class members of the project. A way to do that is to avoid
giving them a name, and emphasize the fact that they are DDs, not
another sub-kind of project members. The no upload rights part would
just be a minor technical distinction.
... and who am I to disagree with a proposal which find consensus from
Lucas to Ganneff, passing through Lars and Russ? :-)
Attached you can find a tentative wording of a proposal which remove the
term Debian Contributors, pretty similar to the version I had before
posting (shame on me for changing that!), but maybe a bit better in that
it doesn't the horrible non-uploading Debian Developer. How about it?
I don't consider this as something that changes the meaning of the
original GR text.
I'll let the patch linger for a couple of days — actually, I'll be away
for most part of tomorrow — and then I'll apply it, posting a new
complete draft here shortly thereafter.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system.
To that end the project benefits from various types of contributions,
including but not limited to: package maintenance, translations,
infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and
fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice,
quality assurance, etc.
The Debian project acknowledges that:
* To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of
other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable.
* Active contributors of non-packaging work, which share Debian values
and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the
opportunity to become Debian Developers.
The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to:
* Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become
Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive.
* Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of
non-packaging work as Debian Developers.
* Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of
non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to
participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian
infrastructure.
--- debian-contributors.txt 2010-09-15 20:54:06.0 +0900
+++ /tmp/debian-contributors.txt 2010-09-15 20:54:04.507770573 +0900
@@ -12,16 +12,17 @@
* Active contributors of non-packaging work, which share Debian values
and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the
- opportunity to become Debian project members.
+ opportunity to become Debian Developers.
The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to:
* Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become
- Debian Developers without upload rights to the Debian archive. These
- new developers shall be recognized as Debian Contributors (DC).
+ Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive.
-* Establish procedures to evaluate and accept Debian Contributors.
+* Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of
+ non-packaging work as Debian Developers.
-* Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable Debian
- Contributors to participate in Debian decision making and to access
- Debian infrastructure.
+* Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of
+ non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to
+ participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian
+ infrastructure.
The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system.
To that end the project benefits from various types of contributions,
including but not limited to: package maintenance, translations,
infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and
fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice,
quality assurance, etc.
The Debian project acknowledges that:
* To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of
other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable.
* Active contributors of non-packaging work, which share Debian values
and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the
opportunity to become Debian [-project members.-] {+Developers.+}
The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to:
* Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become
Debian [-Developers-] {+Developers, albeit+} without upload [-rights-]
{+access+} to the Debian archive.
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Hi, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:00:32PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system. To that end the project benefits from various types of contributions, including but not limited to: package maintenance, translations, infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice, quality assurance, etc. The Debian project acknowledges that: * To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable. * Active contributors of non-packaging work, which share Debian values and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the opportunity to become Debian Developers. The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to: * Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive. * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. I like that a lot more than the other wording, thus seconded. Simon signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Le Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:00:32PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to: * Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive. * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. It seems to me that, if “albeit without upload access to the Debian archive” were removed, it would not close the possibility for the people in charge to restrict upload capacities of developers who do not need them (do-o-cracy), while at the same time it would make the GR more neutral, focusing it on acceptance of new members, without suggesting restriction and therefore difference of status. Would such a change be a happy end for everybody ? Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100915121600.gd30...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 02:13:12PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote:
I like that a lot more than the other wording, thus seconded.
Thanks for your appreciation, but wait! :-) There are no need of seconds
for this change (unless some of the previous seconders considers it
unfaithful with respect to the meaning of the previous text; I don't).
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On 15/09/10 at 21:00 +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: Attached you can find a tentative wording of a proposal which remove the term Debian Contributors, pretty similar to the version I had before posting (shame on me for changing that!), but maybe a bit better in that it doesn't the horrible non-uploading Debian Developer. How about it? I don't consider this as something that changes the meaning of the original GR text. Much better, thanks a lot! I'm wondering whether we should write in stone (= in the GR) that people should not try to come up with a sexy name for DDs without upload access to the Debian archive. This discussion might be enough. - Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100915121609.ga18...@xanadu.blop.info
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:16:00PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
It seems to me that, if “albeit without upload access to the Debian
archive” were removed, it would not close the possibility for the
people in charge to difference of status.
snip
Would such a change be a happy end for everybody ?
Sorry, but I really can't accept that as a simple editorial change to
the text I've proposed. To go that way, please check my discussion
points in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2010/09/msg00052.html.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Le Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:01:47PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:16:00PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: It seems to me that, if “albeit without upload access to the Debian archive” were removed, it would not close the possibility for the people in charge to difference of status. snip Would such a change be a happy end for everybody ? Sorry, but I really can't accept that as a simple editorial change to the text I've proposed. To go that way, please check my discussion points in http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2010/09/msg00052.html. In case there is a doubt: my intention is not to ask Stefano if he thinks that the proposed change is good for everybody, but it is to ask everybody who may care, in particular the Debian application managers and front desk, if the proposed change would be welcome… Good night, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100915151140.gc1...@merveille.plessy.net
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:00:32PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:26:59AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: If we go for DDs without upload rights, I think that we should be extremely careful about not transforming this new kind of DDs into second-class members of the project. A way to do that is to avoid giving them a name, and emphasize the fact that they are DDs, not another sub-kind of project members. The no upload rights part would just be a minor technical distinction. ... and who am I to disagree with a proposal which find consensus from Lucas to Ganneff, passing through Lars and Russ? :-) Attached you can find a tentative wording of a proposal which remove the term Debian Contributors, pretty similar to the version I had before posting (shame on me for changing that!), but maybe a bit better in that it doesn't the horrible non-uploading Debian Developer. How about it? I don't consider this as something that changes the meaning of the original GR text. I'll let the patch linger for a couple of days -- actually, I'll be away for most part of tomorrow -- and then I'll apply it, posting a new complete draft here shortly thereafter. So I'm not considering this currently as an amendment. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100915194009.ga14...@roeckx.be
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 02:13:12PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: Hi, On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:00:32PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: The Debian project aims at producing the best free operating system. To that end the project benefits from various types of contributions, including but not limited to: package maintenance, translations, infrastructure and website maintenance, porting, bug triaging and fixing, management activities, communication, testing, legal advice, quality assurance, etc. The Debian project acknowledges that: * To pursue Debian goals, package maintenance as well as a wide range of other technical and non-technical contributions are all valuable. * Active contributors of non-packaging work, which share Debian values and are ready to uphold Debian Foundation Documents, deserve the opportunity to become Debian Developers. The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to: * Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive. * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. I like that a lot more than the other wording, thus seconded. Please don't go and make this more confusing for me. As far as I can tell this wasn't meant to be amendment yet. He will probably accept this or something simular as amendment replacing the orignal text. So at that time I could put you down as someone that seconds that proposal. You now basicly seem to have created a second proposal. Kurt -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100915194802.gb14...@roeckx.be
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
On 09/15/2010 02:16 PM, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:00:32PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to: * Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive. * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. It seems to me that, if “albeit without upload access to the Debian archive” were removed, it would not close the possibility for the people in charge to restrict upload capacities of developers who do not need them (do-o-cracy), while at the same time it would make the GR more neutral, focusing it on acceptance of new members, without suggesting restriction and therefore difference of status. I don't think we should open a second way to get upload rights to the archive, so I would *not* want to remove that part. -- Bernd ZeimetzDebian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.dehttp://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c91265a.5030...@bzed.de
Re: Naming of non-uploading DDs (Was: GR: welcome non-packaging contributors as Debian project members)
Le Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:02:34PM +0200, Bernd Zeimetz a écrit : On 09/15/2010 02:16 PM, Charles Plessy wrote: Le Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 09:00:32PM +0900, Stefano Zacchiroli a écrit : The Debian project therefore invites the Debian Account Managers to: * Endorse the idea that contributors of non-packaging work might become Debian Developers, albeit without upload access to the Debian archive. * Establish procedures to evaluate and accept contributors of non-packaging work as Debian Developers. * Initiate the appropriate technical measures to enable contributors of non-packaging work, which get accepted as Debian Developers, to participate in Debian decision making and to access Debian infrastructure. It seems to me that, if “albeit without upload access to the Debian archive” were removed, it would not close the possibility for the people in charge to restrict upload capacities of developers who do not need them (do-o-cracy), while at the same time it would make the GR more neutral, focusing it on acceptance of new members, without suggesting restriction and therefore difference of status. I don't think we should open a second way to get upload rights to the archive, so I would *not* want to remove that part. So do you think that if “albeit without upload access to the Debian archive” is not present, the GR will prevent you from restricting upload access to the archive for the DDs who did not pass TS? I am looking for a formulation that invites you to do what you want, without giving a preference for or against the restriction of upload rights. Cheers, -- Charles -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-vote-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100916055807.gb22...@merveille.plessy.net
