On Tuesday 16 May 2006 00:04, Christoph Berg wrote:
> | Introduce an intermediate role "Debian Maintainer" (DM).
> | Summary: is allowed to upload packages already in the archive by himself.
> | Needs sponsoring for new packages, no vote rights. Can either proceed to
> | become DD or stay a DM.
I
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
No. Many applicants simply package stuff no one installs on their
system. And even if some people do, depressingly few people report bugs
they notice - in most cases, they simply remove the package and use
something else.
Well, if no one installs it, it doesn't ma
Anthony DeRobertis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
>> I agree with a lower limit, but I think it would be better of to
>> specify it in terms of "certain number of uploads" as opposed to "some
>> time limit":
>> I might have done 1 upload and just wait a 3 months, or
cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote:
I agree with a lower limit, but I think it would be better of to specify it
in terms of "certain number of uploads" as opposed to "some time limit":
I might have done 1 upload and just wait a 3 months, or I could have done
several uploads over that same period
On Wednesday 17 May 2006 01:27, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 2006-05-16
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > what's the rationale for needing a 2nd package?
> >
> > e.g. I currently maintain 1 small simple sponsered package, I also have
> > contributed for several years as a transl
On Tue, 16 May 2006 18:35:36 -0500, Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> My idea was not to put any additional load on ftp-master and to have
> automatic rejects for that reason. If they have to decide what's wrong
> with a package, they could as well explain it themselves to the
> uploader,
Re: Hubert Chan 2006-05-16 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 6. can use his gpg key to upload this package [2]
> >-> no account/@d.o address yet
> >-> every upload which would go to NEW needs a sponsor [3,4]
>
> I think it may be good to allow the sponsor to decide when the DM is
> allowed to make u
Re: Jeremiah Foster 2006-05-16 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Limiting voting rights seems a step in the wrong direction. Doesn't
> debian want more enfranchisement rather that less?
We don't limit anything here, the prospective DMs can't vote in the
current system either. We can of course discuss on wheth
Re: cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) 2006-05-16 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> what's the rationale for needing a 2nd package?
>
> e.g. I currently maintain 1 small simple sponsered package, I also have
> contributed for several years as a translator.
>
> If we're introducing a new stage with upload rights f
On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 22:04 -0500, Christoph Berg wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Here's my proposal:
>
> +-
> | Introduce an intermediate role "Debian Maintainer" (DM).
> | Summary: is allowed to upload packages already in the archive by himself.
> | Needs sponsoring for new packages, no vote rights
On Mon, 15 May 2006 22:04:01 -0500, Christoph Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
> Stage 1:
[...]
> 6. can use his gpg key to upload this package [2]
>-> no account/@d.o address yet
>-> every upload which would go to NEW needs a sponsor [3,4]
I think it may be good to allow the spons
On Tuesday 16 May 2006 05:04, Christoph Berg wrote:
> The process I propose looks like:
> 2. contributes to Debian:
>-> work on the package (bug fixing, new upstream releases) with
> sponsored uploads
>-> 2nd package with >> 1 upload (e.g. not a totally trivial package,
> a rul
Hi,
these are my thoughts on how the NM process could look like in the
future. The proposal has been inspired by Anthony Town's blog posting
at [1], by my own experience in NM and being an AM, and finally by
discussions with Marc Brockschmidt.
[1] http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/2006/04/12#20
13 matches
Mail list logo
