Re: non-uploading Debian New Maintainer process

On Mon, Nov 08, 2010 at 01:01:38PM +0100, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > > 4. Is it correct that now, the DNM process takes one year ? > > (See Applicants in Process on https://nm.debian.org/) > > It always did depend and always will depend on the individual applying, > what they have done and how well

Re: non-uploading Debian New Maintainer process

Hi! * Henri Le Foll [2010-11-06 14:11:37 CET]: > I will explain more clearly what I have tried to say on the two previous > mail. Actually you have received feedback for that already, but let's try again. > abbreviations > --- There is no need to rename things even more,

non-uploading Debian New Maintainer process

clearly what I have tried to say on the two previous mail. I will also had some new things. I hope it is the good place and the good time to have this discussion. abbreviations - --- DD : Debian Developper DM : Debian Maintainer DNM : Debian new maintainer NMA : New Maintainer

Bits from the New Maintainer Front-Desk

Debian New Maintainer Front-Desk [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://nm.debian.org/Christoph Berg November 25, 2007 http://www.debian.org/devel/join

Re: The Debian New Maintainer process

Hi. This mail is just sent to the list. In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Tue, 12 Sep 2000 15:22:12 +, "michael d. ivey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm glad I can help. When philh first asked me which areas I wanted to > help in, during the NM process, I suggested NM, just because I knew it > w

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Chris Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As I said, I don't expect every one of these options to exist for > everyone; just that there are many different options beyond personally > owning a scanner, and I believe for the majority of people, at least one > should be viable. And honestly

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fearthe new maintainer process)

As I said, I don't expect every one of these options to exist for everyone; just that there are many different options beyond personally owning a scanner, and I believe for the majority of people, at least one should be viable. And honestly, I don't see why mailing a photograph (the simp

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Sun, Aug 06, 2000 at 09:41:39AM +0200, "Jürgen A. Erhard" wrote: > Name just *one* task in Debian that requires a maintainer to use a > scanner. Just one. Apart from joining, that is. Maintaining sane? Okay, maybe not strictly necessary, but it probably helps a whole *hell* of a lot. :) B

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fearthe new maintainer process)

> "Chris" == Chris Pimlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Chris> On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Jim Ziegler wrote: >> So out with Kernigan and Ritchie, they had no scanners so could not have >> had anything to contribute. (Please be sure to note that this is a >> comment on the arrogance

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

> "Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dale> On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote: >> Dale Scheetz writes: >> > It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be >> > required by the task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be >> > a reasonable

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > When I submitted a scan of my Driver's License in early 1998, I used xpaint > or the gimp or something to place black "censorship" rectangles over my > actual driver's license number and social security number. This was > regarde

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Fri, Aug 04, 2000 at 02:03:37PM -0500, Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote... > On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > When I submitted a scan of my Driver's License in early 1998, I used xpaint > or the gimp or something to place black "censorship" rectangle

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fearthe new maintainer process)

On Fri, 4 Aug 2000, Jim Ziegler wrote: > So out with Kernigan and Ritchie, they had no scanners so could not have > had anything to contribute. (Please be sure to note that this is a > comment on the arrogance of the assumption that one who does not have > convienent access to the latest techno

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Hi, I am nearly sorry to lengthen this thread, but I stumbled about an assumption that I believe is fundamental and _not_ true: The keyboard of Gopal Narayanan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think some sort of traceability is good. As debian maintainers, we > can upload packages. If I am malici

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 06:58:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > So far, to my knowledge, not one applicant has refused to supply such > information. If one such example exists, I would argue that this clause > should, in fact, be executed, rejecting such applications, simply because > there are s

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:05:06PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the > task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to > require of incoming members. Isn't it? > > > No. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Ziegler

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

#x27;t > possibly take on the 600-900 per year who wish to apply without a > significant "weeding" process. So far the only tool we are using is > "response time" of the applicant, which helps thru-put. > > > Such a welcoming mindset! This does not seem to

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > > For me, it would be harder to provide a recent photo, that it would be to > provide a copy of my passport, so I appologize if I'm a bit incredulous > about the difficulties of providing "ade

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > I would also ask: Do we want to accept people as members who are unwilling > to show us their face? > > Obvoiusly I don't think so ;-) > Send me a scanner and I'll send you a picture. Or send me the money to buy one. -- [E

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Dale Scheetz writes: > > > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except > > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me, > > You've not been reading my emails then. I do

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 06:08:36PM +0100, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Dale Scheetz writes: > > > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except > > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me, > > You've not been reading my emails then. I do

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fearthe new maintainer process)

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Folks, I have been reading this thread for far too long Point and counter-point; Feignt and thrust; Whine and counter-whine I just recently exited the NM que. I had to jump through all the hoops. And you know what? I agreed with every one

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Thu, Aug 03, 2000 at 04:47:31PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Thu, 3 Aug 2000, Anand Kumria wrote: > > Why do you continue to confuse the issue by bringing in the onerous task > > furphy? It is all about trust. > Well, I agree that I trust a keysigner, and that trust allows me to accept > the

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Thu, 03 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Dale Scheetz writes: > > > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except > > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me, > > You've not been reading my emails then. I don't want random peop

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Dale Scheetz writes: > I just can't understand the reluctance to satisfy this requirement except > that it is viewed by some as being too hard. I cannot, for the life of me, You've not been reading my emails then. I don't want random people having a copy of my passport digitised (worse still,

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

performance test. "Can the applicant provide a specific document in > > digital format, properly signed?" > > This requirement that they provide an image is only for the new-maintainer > process. Debian, as a project, requires people to be competent enough to > sign thing

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fearthe new maintainer process)

Hi. In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on "Thu, 3 Aug 2000 13:55:43 +1000", Anand Kumria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Extrapolations: > > 1. the new-maintainer process does not trust existing developers; > having your key signed by an existing developer counts for no

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Dale Scheetz writes: > On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote: > > No. Why should being a debian developer require you to be able to get > > hold of a scanner? > > Why should we require them to have access to a computer? Oh come on, be reasonable. That's a non sequitur, and you know it. T

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Dale wrote: > Matthew Vernon wrote: > > Therefore, what does it matter that I can't remember the face of the > > person whose key I signed six months ago? I am still happy that I saw > > good ID, and that if I get mail signed/encrypted with that key that it > > comes from that person. > >

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 07:35:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > This just doesn't seem to be the onerous task that several have made it > out to be. It's just another requirement for becoming a member. Why not > just obliterate all the requirements, and make signing up sufficient to > membership?

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

t service like, with the DAM. > think some sort of traceability is good. As debian maintainers, we can The identification traceability is provided by signatures on applicants public keys. > upload packages. If I am malicious and crafty enough, I can put a > trojan horse in my package t

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

; We don't require this. We do require them to be "competent" enough to be > able to crate an image file from a document. Consider this a technical > performance test. "Can the applicant provide a specific document in > digital format, properly signed?" Thi

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

at difference does it make if the face matches the name? If I get plastic surgery, is there some problem somewhere? Should I get one of those cute masks from MI:2 and wear it at conferences or something? Do we still do phonecalls for every new maintainer? ie, "What's your phone number?"

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

> "Dale" == Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Dale> [...] I find the technical argument (the applicant does not Dale> have access to scanners, etc...) to be as weak, because it Dale> declares a lack of "connectedness" with the "technological" Dale> society they wish to

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

is that the photo id requested does not Gopal> mean that existing developers are not to be trusted. It is Gopal> an *additional* piece of documentation that goes into the Gopal> new-maintainer/developer's file. And additional *worthless* piece of documentation. (Even if i

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 11:29:49PM +0200, Detlev Zundel wrote: > The scanned ID step is a prominent example of such a "test" of > determinedness (and nothing more) because I think everybody agrees > that the scanned ID does _not_ improve the trace-ability of applicants > in the case where a Debian

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Hi, this whole discussion touches some deep points that I'd like to comment on. Basically I can make out two attitudes, or views of the project, resulting in arguments over more minor points. I'll call these groups the "open" and "closed" positions. I know this is a _large_ oversimplification

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Hi, this whole discussion touches some deep points that I'd like to comment on. Basically I can make out two attitudes, or views of the project, resulting in arguments over more minor points. I'll call these groups the "open" and "closed" positions. I know this is a _large_ oversimplification

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 06:58:40PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > This photo isn't about a "web of trust". That requirement is satisfied by > the key. The photo is about being able to identify our membership. As your > key fingerprint is not required to be barcoded onto your hand, the image > of

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

cept hardcopy by snail-mail and scan it on my scanner. On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 05:43:37PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Which is useless since it doesn't associate the key with the person > at all. The new-maintainer checklist clearly says that the scanned image must be signed by the

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Dale Scheetz writes: > > > It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the > > task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to > > require of incoming members. Isn't it? > > No. Why should being a debian

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Wed, 2 Aug 2000, Matthew Vernon wrote: > Dale Scheetz writes: > > I think that either Dale or myself has misunderstood something here, > since his argument makes little sense from my (albeit limited) > knowledge of how PGP/GPG keysigning works. I've kept the quoted text > below because it see

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Previously William Ono wrote: > This point comes up over and over, and every time someone has to point > out that alternative methods of getting the photograph digitized are > available. Whenever this issue comes up with one of my applicants, I > offer to accept hardcopy by snail-mail and scan it

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fearthe new maintainer process)

On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > It just occured to my that effectively, both privileges are not granted to > Debian members only. We have sponsors who upload packages contributed by > non-members. Although those can't upload themselves, it is prettym uch the > same. And we all know

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:49:42PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > It just occured to my that effectively, both privileges are not granted to > Debian members only. We have sponsors who upload packages contributed by > non-members. Although those can't upload themselves, it is prettym uch the > s

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

(I have subscribed this list, so cc to me is not needed) In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Tue, 1 Aug 2000 20:49:42 +0200, Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:21:37PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > I am rather scared by a statement that effectively assumes th

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Dale Scheetz writes: I think that either Dale or myself has misunderstood something here, since his argument makes little sense from my (albeit limited) knowledge of how PGP/GPG keysigning works. I've kept the quoted text below because it seems to me to be the most succinct form of his argument.

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

> The gain is that he presents his face to the group, in a form that we can > archive for "our" records, saying, "yes, we have seen this guy". This gain > is to the group as well as to the applicant. There is nothing to be gained > at this point (and much to put at risk) by presenting a false

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Dale Scheetz writes: > It comes down to: Can you do "normal" things that may be required by the > task at hand? Scanning a passport seems to be a reasonable skill to > require of incoming members. Isn't it? No. Why should being a debian developer require you to be able to get hold of a scanne

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:28:28PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > The people who signed keys said themselves that they could not with any > sureness identify someone who's key they signed once, long ago. We > realized, after some debate, that the fact that the developer in question > _did_ see a pas

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > [Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list] Am I the only one who has constant trouble getting the Debian listserver to acknowledge my requests? In the past I've been ignored when trying to subscribe and unsubscribe from various list

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > It depends on what sort of stuff you do. Unless you actually want to > scan in images there's no reason to have a scanner. Computers, net > connections - these things we can expect people to have access to. > Scanners just aren't so g

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Anand Kumria wrote: >I don't know when you asked Dale but the procedures are quite clear that >"An image file of an appropriate piece of photo-identification" (from >http://www.debian.org/devel/join/nm-step2> is required. Yes! We want (as a group) to see the id. The fact that a developer

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 09:09:39PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > A privilege is a "special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by > all" (wordnet). You said "the privilege to be trusted to contribute to > Debian". Many people outside Debian are to be trusted to contribute, > directl

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes: >Hello, > >A privilege is a "special advantage or immunity or benefit not enjoyed by >all" (wordnet). You said "the privilege to be trusted to contribute to >Debian". Many people outside Debian are to be trusted to contribute, >directly

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

tion, the other is your signature [Of course, both can be forged, I don't want to get into that] All, I am saying is that the photo id requested does not mean that existing developers are not to be trusted. It is an *additional* piece of documentation that goes into the new-maintainer/developer&

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Hello, On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:53:36PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes: > >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote: > >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes: > >> >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -04

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes: >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote: >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes: >> >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote: >> >> Membership is a privilege, >> > >> >The priv

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:21:37PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > I am rather scared by a statement that effectively assumes that being part > of Debian is a "privilege" that needs to be protected by people who > probably want to abuse it.[1] The only privileges you have as a Debian > maintainer

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 08:06:55PM +0200, Nils Lohner wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes: > >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote: > >> Membership is a privilege, > > > >The privilege to work, or what? > > > IMO the privilege to be trusted

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Marcus Brinkmann writes: >On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote: >> Membership is a privilege, > >The privilege to work, or what? > IMO the privilege to be trusted to contribute to Debian, represent it well and to adhere to the social co

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 06:38:03PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:33:47AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote: > > > Perhaps, once again, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether to > > trust existing Debian developers to authenticate (sign) the key of > > aspiring Debian d

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote: > Membership is a privilege, The privilege to work, or what? Thanks, Marcus -- `Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org Check Key server Marcus Brinkmann GNUhttp://www.gnu.orgfor public PGP

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:09:46AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > > On 01-Aug-00, 09:32 (CDT), Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I find the technical argument (the applicant does not > > > have access to scanners, etc.

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Wed, Aug 02, 2000 at 03:33:47AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote: > Perhaps, once again, that is not the issue here. The issue is whether to > trust existing Debian developers to authenticate (sign) the key of > aspiring Debian developers. Trusting developers doesn't seem to be an issue at all. N

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:05:06PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > > > [Re

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:55:50AM -0500, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown typed: > } On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > } > about the difficulties of providing "adequate" identification. I find the > } > technical argument

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 01:07:24PM -0400, Gopal Narayanan wrote: > If you absolutely can't get hold of a scanner, take a (analog) photo > of your ID, have it developed in any number of online places or your > next-door photo shop, that would give you a CDROM with all your > photos.. Sheesh. Sure

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > > > > Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from > > > the signature on their key) coupled

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 11:09:46AM -0500, Steve Greenland wrote: > On 01-Aug-00, 09:32 (CDT), Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I find the technical argument (the applicant does not > > have access to scanners, etc...) to be as weak, because it declares a > > lack of "connectedness" with

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 04:05:06PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > > [Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list] I've just dropped it this time. > I don't own a scanner. I know several friends who do, and under extreeme That depends on who you know and wh

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On 01-Aug-00, 09:32 (CDT), Dale Scheetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I find the technical argument (the applicant does not > have access to scanners, etc...) to be as weak, because it declares a > lack of "connectedness" with the "technological" society they wish to > enter. While I'm not arguing

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, 1 Aug 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > [Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list] > > > about the difficulties of

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 10:55:50AM -0500, An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote: > Wouldn't libraries and other such places usually have scanners for public > access (or maybe, if they're clueless or harassed libraries, free access Not round here. Printers probably would, though they might not be enthused a

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 03:42:51PM +0100, Mark Brown typed: } On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: } > about the difficulties of providing "adequate" identification. I find the } > technical argument (the applicant does not have access to scanners, } > etc...) to be as wea

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, [iso-8859-1] Jens Müller wrote: > Please choose ONE debian-* list! > Sorry but there isn't ONE debian-* list! Luck, Dwarf -- _-_-_-_-_- Author of "The Debian Linux User's Guide" _-_-_-_-_-_- aka Dale Scheetz Phone: 1 (850) 656-9769 Flexible

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

> > First off, though, I dispute your entire entire eyeball/handshake notion. Dispute it all you like. This _is_ the principle on which the new maintainer ID process was founded. You were, ostensibly, a party to the extensive discussion that went on among the AMs about this very step, as it w

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Tue, Aug 01, 2000 at 02:32:01PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: [Reply-To: set to drop the old nm-admin list] > about the difficulties of providing "adequate" identification. I find the > tec

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2000, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > > > Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from > > the signature on their key) coupled with the signed image provided by the > > applicant closes the eye/hand l

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Dale Scheetz wrote: > I would also ask: Do we want to accept people as members who are unwilling > to show us their face? gpg -kvv espy |grep -v Klecker -- see shy jo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > Worse, this was predicted also from the *experience* of sponsoring new > maintainers , not only > from a theoretical analysis. > > The real-size experimentation performed in sponsoring seems to have been > compl

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

- Original Message - From: "Anand Kumria" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Dale Scheetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Please choose ONE debian-* list! Jens -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe"

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

entialy what it boils down to is this. Say there is an applicant, for example, Robert van der Meulen. This applicant has a public key signed by Wichert, Ray Dassen and Michel Onstein. The new maintainer process says that these three people aren't competnant enough, aren't trustworthy en

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

On Mon, Jul 31, 2000 at 03:06:36PM +, Dale Scheetz wrote: > Having the assurance that the keyholder is the applicant (this comes from > the signature on their key) coupled with the signed image provided by the > applicant closes the eye/hand loop. Neither is sufficient without the > other. B

Re: [nm-admin] Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

I strongly disagree with the interpretation being made here. Every applicant must provide an image file of a photograph of themselves, most desired is a passport or a photo ID, signed with their GPG key, in order to identify themselves to the group. This image is archived by the DAM as the record

Identification step in the current scheme (Re: Fear the new maintainer process)

Hi. Since the new list debian-newmaint-discuss was created (Thanks list-admins!) I think this topic should be moved on to there. For members in the NM team who has not subscribed the new list, I sent the copy of this mail to the old nm-admin list. In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Mon, 31 Jul 2000 0

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 02:22:09PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Anand Kumria wrote: > > Applicants whose keys are signed by existing developers must still > > submit a photographic ID of themselves. > > This is not true as far as I know. Well two developers have already pointed ou

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

Christian Surchi wrote: > On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 02:22:09PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > > > Applicants whose keys are signed by existing developers must still > > > submit a photographic ID of themselves. > > > > This is not true as far as I know. > > I had my key signed by two develope

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

Previously Anand Kumria wrote: > Applicants whose keys are signed by existing developers must still > submit a photographic ID of themselves. This is not true as far as I know. Wichert. -- _ / Generally uninteresting signature

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

Previously Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > Neither the remainder of the old new maintainer team (Joey), nor > Wichert seemed to really want a discussion of this. As I remember it we did have a discussion of this but at some point I concluded we have different points of view neither of us wan

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

On Sun, Jul 30, 2000 at 02:22:09PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote: > > Applicants whose keys are signed by existing developers must still > > submit a photographic ID of themselves. > > This is not true as far as I know. I had my key signed by two developers and I had to send my scanned ID. bye

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

As I have wrote before, may major concern is to get more new members into our project NOW. I have worked for this. I don't wish to be a clitic who does not work using his own time and resources for what he try to criticize. In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on Wed, 26 Jul 2000 20:31:44 +0100, Mark Brow

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

On Wednesday 26 July 2000, at 12 h 57, the keyboard of Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > the processing queue is about 200 while the number of Application Managers > > is only about 30. We need more and more Application Managers now. > > I prophecised this in my critique as well

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

On Thu, Jul 27, 2000 at 06:14:56AM +1000, Anand Kumria wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > The problem is with applicants who basically don't respond when NM tries > > to get in touch with them, and it seems fair to put some of the effort > > for avoiding tha

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 02:56:10PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:23:06PM +0200, Marcus Brinkmann wrote: > > Am Mit, 26 Jul 2000 15:11:08 Mark Brown Sie: > > > > It's not about the entry in the queue - it's about the time it takes the > > > application manager to work this

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

project. > > > > I can't help to be extremly worried about the new maintainer > > procedure. > > > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 01:31:22PM +0900, Taketoshi Sano wrote: > > > (There are several applicants who > > > does not respond at all, or holding

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

On Wed, Jul 26, 2000 at 03:06:21PM -0400, Clint Adams wrote: > This entire thread seems to presume diligence on the part of the AM > and lackadaisy on the part of the applicant, not mentioning cases > where the reverse is true. Both could be problems and both need to be addressed. At present pe

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

> It's not about the entry in the queue - it's about the time it takes the > application manager to work this out when they try to process that > applicant. It's frustrating and it's time that could be better spent > getting another applicant through the process. This entire thread seems to pres

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

Hi. excuse me to have rant on the list. In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 26 Jul 2000 12:55:23 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Thomas Bushnell, BSG) wrote: > In my case, nobody ever informed me that a three-week deadline, or > whatever it is, existed. For the record, it is not "three-week deadline". I wr

Re: Fear the new maintainer process

ne should be used, and the applicant should be informed of this. Extensions are possible, and in the truly rare event that someone could not respond for reasons beyond his control, we can enter him back into the New Maintainer queue, when he is ready to resume the process. - Brian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE,

  1   2   >