Heya,
Problems with the New Maintainer process have been a regular topic on
Debian mailing lists in the past few months. As I'm both interested
in not reading more flamewars and actually improving things, I've
summarized my experiences and tried to come up with something that is
perhaps able to fi
Hi,
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt:
> For package maintainers, an intensive package check follows. If
> everything went fine, these people get upload permissions for *these*
> packages (and nothing else). If they want to adopt new packages, their
> AM does a package-check once and fitting upload permissio
On 4/11/06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> (...)
> 3. Conclusions
> ==
>
> (..)
> I'd like to implement the proposals I made in (2.1) and (2.2) as fast as
> possible, especially applying the rules in (2.2) to people already in the
> queue waiting for an AM. (2.3) is
Le Mar 11 Avril 2006 18:40, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
> I'd like to implement the proposals I made in (2.1) and (2.2) as fast
> as possible, especially applying the rules in (2.2) to people already
> in the queue waiting for an AM.
I agree both points are a good thing, and should be impleme
Hello,
my comments as someone planning to enter NM during the next couple of
month follow.
Overall I find your analysis enlightening. I agree with those points I
do not discuss here.
> 1.2.1 Add more people
[Marc argues that this is not a long solution]
I disagree here up to a certain point. I
> Unless you are not planning to have long term "second class
> developers"
Make this: Unless you are planning to have long term "second class
developers"
--
Please do not send any email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- all email not
originating from the mailing list will be deleted. Use the reply to
add
On 4/11/06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2.1 Multiple advocates
> --
I agree with the rest of the suggestions, but I'm not sure that I
agree with this one... I can think of two cases where this could be
an unnecessary problem to someone who does actuall
Hey Marc,
Thanks for this initiative; I'd just decided to not get involved in the
threads on -newmaint anymore because even though I feel strongly about
the issue, the threads were just a repeat of themselves. However, your
mail seems to be different, in that it comes from someone actually
involve
On 4/11/06, Benjamin Mesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Unless you are not planning to have long term "second class
> > developers"
> Make this: Unless you are planning to have long term "second class
> developers"
No, no, no. Give someone the rights to vote or upload something for
Debian isn't
On Tue, 2006-04-11 at 15:07 -0300, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> On 4/11/06, Benjamin Mesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Unless you are not planning to have long term "second class
> > > developers"
> > Make this: Unless you are planning to have long term "second class
> > developers"
>
> No, no, n
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> 1) Someone who maintains a certain number of packages, but they are
> all sponsored by the same person. This person might be doing a lot of
> work, and be knowledgeable about Debian without interacting actively
> with anyone else apart from his/her
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> I strongly disagree that 2.3 is a long-term thing. It should be
> started years ago, but it isn't too late yet. We should push it with a
> transition plan in mind (e.g: what we're going to do with the people
> that is already waiting for DAM?), but the t
On 4/11/06, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Gustavo Franco wrote:
> > I strongly disagree that 2.3 is a long-term thing. It should be
> > started years ago, but it isn't too late yet. We should push it with a
> > transition plan in mind (e.g: what we're going to do
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 02:54:07PM -0300, Margarita Manterola wrote:
> On 4/11/06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2.1 Multiple advocates
> > --
>
> I agree with the rest of the suggestions, but I'm not sure that I
> agree with this one... I can think
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060411 18:40]:
> The big idea is to split the NM process up and add privileges after each
> step, so that people don't need to go through the whole process to
> maintain their two pet packages on their own anymore. The current
> sponsoring process encou
"Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> Plus sponsoring is a nice way to have experienced people look at what
> a applicant is doing. If done seriously sponsoring is almost as much work
> as packaging a package on your own,
But only very few people take sponsoring seriously, despite
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:59:44PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> For 2.2, I'd recommend that NM's maintain a page about them on
> wiki.d.org (my current applicant did that, and I found that rather
> useful). In a glance you can see applicants that are not comited
> enough.
Probably it's a goo
On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:40:34PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> 2.1 Multiple advocates
> --
> Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about
> two). This should get the number of people advocated with a "Errr,
> I met him, he seemed nice" down. At t
Dear Marc and fellow Debian friends,
Thanks for this cogent and clear summary of the problem as you see it.
It reminds me a bit of the problem of scientific peer-review; for-pay
journals often ask people to donate their limitted time reviewing
other people's work. Although the journal profits, t
On 11 Apr 2006, Marc Brockschmidt told this:
> "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
>> Plus sponsoring is a nice way to have experienced people look at
>> what a applicant is doing. If done seriously sponsoring is almost
>> as much work as packaging a package on your own,
>
> But
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 02:09 +0200, Michael Banck wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:59:44PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > For 2.2, I'd recommend that NM's maintain a page about them on
> > wiki.d.org (my current applicant did that, and I found that rather
> > useful). In a glance you can see
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> Isn't this almost equivalent of giving them their Account directly
> and ask them to get any new package reviewed by someone else?
> (As there is nothing to avoid their build rules or maintainer scripts to
> do dangerous stuff, so from the risk-view th
Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 08:34, Benjamin Mesing a écrit :
> I would strongly suggest, allowing to restrict access to such a site
> to DDs. This is because not everyone feels comfortable having
> personal information (like your specific view on free software)
> world-accessable. Debian developers need t
Hi Kevin,
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Kevin Mark wrote:
> Hi Margarita,
> tracking contributions:
> when someone (like a non-debian package maintainer or a NM) asks for
> something to be sponsored, is there a mailing list or location (like on
> wiki.d.o/$NAME) that this is noted?
There's no centralized
Hi,
On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> perhaps able to fix most of the problems. Please note that this is *my*
> opinion, not something decided by the NM team.
Thanks for starting this discussion !
> Quite a lot of applicants are frustrated by the NM process. The reason
> for t
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060412 08:39]:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > Isn't this almost equivalent of giving them their Account directly
> > and ask them to get any new package reviewed by someone else?
> > (As there is nothing to avoid their build rules or mainta
On 10622 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> And the bigger problem is that people who are ready to become DD may be
> waiting on the AM assignation list while people who are not ready are
> currently learning with the help of an AM whose job should not be to play
> the sponsor of the applicant (
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:25:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Could you report such sponsors, so we may take their
> sponsorship privileges away?
There's no technical way to do this (yet), as far as I can see.
Michael
--
Michael Banck
Debian Developer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ww
[ Why the crosspost ? I responded only on -project since that where's Marc
pointed the mail followup to ]
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> On 10622 March 1977, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
>
> > And the bigger problem is that people who are ready to become DD may be
> > waiting on the AM ass
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > That's true except that I hope that someone won't get upload rights after
> > their
> > very first sponsored uploads. The DD should give upload rights to the
> > contributor
> > *only* after several sponsored upload that went well.
>
> That's only
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 11:46:31AM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Documenting stuff in a wiki-like page may help *a little bit* prior to
> the AM assignment, but not very much. And about nothing after that, as
> the AM already asks (if he uses my templates or something based on that)
> for the contr
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060412 12:11]:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:25:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Could you report such sponsors, so we may take their
> > sponsorship privileges away?
>
> There's no technical way to do this (yet), as far as I can see.
There is -
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:43:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060412 12:11]:
> > On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:25:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > Could you report such sponsors, so we may take their
> > > sponsorship privileges away?
> > There
* Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060412 14:41]:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:43:22PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Michael Banck ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060412 12:11]:
> > > On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:25:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > > Could you report such sponsors, so we
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 08:43:48AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 08:34, Benjamin Mesing a écrit :
> > I would strongly suggest, allowing to restrict access to such a site
> > to DDs. This is because not everyone feels comfortable having
> > personal information (like your spe
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1. Current situation
Thank you for summarising.
> [...] and the excellent introduction given in the
> talk Hanna Wallach, Moray Allan and Dafydd Harries held last year [2].
> [2] http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~hmw26/publications/debconf5.pdf
I'll refer to
Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 14:57, Neil McGovern a écrit :
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 08:43:48AM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 08:34, Benjamin Mesing a écrit :
> > > I would strongly suggest, allowing to restrict access to such a
> > > site to DDs. This is because not everyone feel
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:03:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Applicants with fast/free internet connections, local mirrors and so
> on can do the bookwork needed for the template questions without much
> pain. A lot of the questions repeatedly confirm an ability to look
> stuff up and restate it, tes
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060412 12:33]:
> I believe many people would be happy with the right to upload only some
> specific packages. I know for example a TeX expert who'd like to
> maintaine some TeX-related packages but who doesn't want to become full DD
> because he is not interes
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> * Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060412 12:33]:
> > I believe many people would be happy with the right to upload only some
> > specific packages. I know for example a TeX expert who'd like to
> > maintaine some TeX-related packages but who doesn
Pierre Habouzit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Le Mar 11 Avril 2006 18:40, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt a écrit :
>> I'd like to implement the proposals I made in (2.1) and (2.2) as fast
>> as possible, especially applying the rules in (2.2) to people already
>> in the queue waiting for an AM.
> I agree
Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I am not sure 6 months of sustained contributions is really necessary, I
> think "several months" or "sustained contributions" are alright, where
> both measures are up for interpretation depending on the type, quality
> and quantity of the contribu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt:
>> For package maintainers, an intensive package check follows. If
>> everything went fine, these people get upload permissions for *these*
>> packages (and nothing else). If they want to adopt new packages, their
>> AM does a package-check once a
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Well, the idea has been proposed some times now. It has its advantages,
> but there are still some problems - updating a page on wiki.d.o takes
> time [1], so they tend to become outdated.
If it becomes outdated, then the applicant has to update
"Gustavo Franco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 4/11/06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> (...)
>> 3. Conclusions
>> ==
>>
>> (..)
>> I'd like to implement the proposals I made in (2.1) and (2.2) as fast as
>> possible, especially applying the rules in (2.2) to pe
Heya,
Benjamin Mesing <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights
> Unless you are not planning to have long term "second class
> developers" (i.e. developers with restricted rights), I don't think it
> is a good idea. The additional overhead I
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 11 Apr 2006, Marc Brockschmidt told this:
>> "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Plus sponsoring is a nice way to have experienced people look at
>>> what a applicant is doing. If done seriously sponsoring is almost
>>> as mu
Hello
> > I would strongly suggest, allowing to restrict access to such a site
> > to DDs. This is because not everyone feels comfortable having
> > personal information (like your specific view on free software)
> > world-accessable. Debian developers need to know, since you are about
> > to beco
(Please CC me on replies as I'm not subscribing the list.)
I'm currently at the "prospective NM" stage, trying to get my work into
Debian. That should give quite a different view from Marc's on the
whole subject... Of course, I may say stupid things because of my lack
of experience with the NM p
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:32:54PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I don't think the DM concept should end the sponsorship idea. But I do
> like to have a clear indication in the changelog of who sponsored who.
> It's a pain to have to use gpg to discover who sponsored the uplo
On 12 Apr 2006, Raphael Hertzog spake thusly:
> Except when you have a new upstream version where you should
> download the upstream tarball and check that it's the same that has
> been submitted by the applicant... who does that every time ?
I do, just as I do for every one of my own pac
On 12 Apr 2006, Marc Brockschmidt verbalised:
> Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> On 11 Apr 2006, Marc Brockschmidt told this:
>>> "Bernhard R. Link" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> [...]
Plus sponsoring is a nice way to have experienced people look at
what a applicant is d
On 12 Apr 2006, Panu Kalliokoski said:
> (Please CC me on replies as I'm not subscribing the list.)
If you set Mail-Folllowup-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], you would be
assured of such a CC from my MUA. I often do not catch such requests
in the body of the mail.
> The central problem and the
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 08:34, Benjamin Mesing a écrit :
>> I would strongly suggest, allowing to restrict access to such a site
>> to DDs. This is because not everyone feels comfortable having
>> personal information (like your specific view on free software)
>> world-accessa
Le Mer 12 Avril 2006 14:36, Vincent Danjean a écrit :
> Pierre Habouzit wrote:
> > So to my eyes, the so called problem you raise is irrelevant. Not
> > to mention that I would feel concerned and surprised (in a bad
> > sense) if an applicant would have such issues. e.g.: if you have an
> > issue w
Hello
> like your studies (beeing in a computer science PhD/MSC "helps"),
Well this might be interesting for the Debian project, but applicants
might not want this to become public knowledge. Please do not assume,
that this is for any particular reason, but merely for keeping ones
privacy.
Debi
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Vincent Danjean wrote:
> I know that he, FD, DAM and perhaps a few others DD will read all these
> mail. But I would be very disappointed if these data become public
> even if restricted to all DD.
Why ? You should trust other DD if you're going to be part of Debian. If
you sh
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > like your studies (beeing in a computer science PhD/MSC "helps"),
> Well this might be interesting for the Debian project, but applicants
> might not want this to become public knowledge. Please do not assume,
> that this is for any particular reason
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > It's a pain to have to use gpg to discover who sponsored the upload.
>
> You already know that by looking at the GPG signature.
If you read what I wrote (I just kept the relevant line) ... you will see
that I know that. But it's a pain to have to grab t
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I do, just as I do for every one of my own packages. If you
> don't. perhaps you should consider lowering your burden so you can
> have time for such a basic security check.
It's been a long time since I last sponsored someone, so I was not
On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> requiring the packaging and making available of open source software to
> be a hierarchic, rigid process, we are essentially taking that freedom
> away.
You can create (Debian) packages outside of Debian if you're not happy
with Debian.
> One could a
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 21:33 +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> Michael Banck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> > I am not sure 6 months of sustained contributions is really necessary, I
> > think "several months" or "sustained contributions" are alright, where
> > both measures are up for i
On Thu, 2006-04-13 at 08:39 +0200, Benjamin Mesing wrote:
> > like your studies (beeing in a computer science PhD/MSC "helps"),
> Well this might be interesting for the Debian project, but applicants
> might not want this to become public knowledge. Please do not assume,
> that this is for any par
This one time, at band camp, Raphael Hertzog said:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > It's a pain to have to use gpg to discover who sponsored the upload.
> >
> > You already know that by looking at the GPG signature.
>
> If you read what I wrote (I just kept the relevant line) ... y
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Stephen Gran wrote:
> > If you read what I wrote (I just kept the relevant line) ... you will see
> > that I know that. But it's a pain to have to grab the .changes file and
> > run gpg on it.
>
> Just to pick one I happened to recently sponsor:
> http://qa.debian.org/[EMAIL
Simon Huggins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 02:03:10PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> > [...] A lot of the questions repeatedly confirm an ability to look
> > stuff up and restate it, testing research skills and language skills,
> > rather than knowledge. [...]
>
> I'd rather someone knew
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> The NM process may have been more lax and accepted DD which are nowadays
> causing problems due to their lack of social skills for example.
>
> Don't you think we have a right to improve by being more selective?
I don't think knowing a DD did NM tells you abo
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 07:27:03AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Personally, I think social skills are a long-term problem.
> Most nasty nutters could play the nice guy until they get in.
> It's how we deal with it happening.
Hi MJR,
I would expect most NM folks to be on their best behavior while dealing
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060412 21:27]:
> It's always an issue of trust. I would trust this guy to maintain the
> TeX-related packages but he doesn't have the skills to do NMU on
> everything so there's no need to give him that right.
I'd not trust any DD to NMU everything. But I tru
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > The bigger we get, the more difficult it is to follow that everybody is
> > behaving in accordance to our rules, and the more important it is to give
> > only
> > the rights that someone need.
>
> I'm not opposed to finer grained permissions for pa
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060414 15:59]:
> > any problem, as I do not believe we have a problem finding people
> > willing to package something to itch their scratch, but finding people
> > doing more than that.
>
> Saying we want more people doing general QA work will not create thos
Hi,
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > Saying we want more people doing general QA work will not create those
> > people. Refusing help on specific package because some people do not want
> > to go through NM to maintain a very limited package is dumb:
>
> I think it is dump to make
* Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [060414 18:46]:
> We already have that situation. Some people are maintaining packages via
> sponsors and are not in the NM queue because they find this process
> overkill and uselessly complex.
This is quite a relatively good situation. They can do the perl/t
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060411 18:40]:
> 2.1 Multiple advocates
> --
>
> Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about
> two). This should get the number of people advocated with a "Errr,
> I met him, he seemed nice" down. At the same t
On 14 Apr 2006, Raphael Hertzog verbalised:
> On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
>>> The bigger we get, the more difficult it is to follow that
>>> everybody is behaving in accordance to our rules, and the more
>>> important it is to give only the rights that someone need.
>>
>> I'm not
On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > We'll never tell that! We just tell "we trust you to maintain
> > according to our standards but since you didn't went (yet) through
> > full NM, we don't trust you on working on anything you'd want".
>
> Err, I am not sure we do say that.
On Saturday 15 April 2006 17:48, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
--cut--
> > We'll never tell that! We just tell "we trust you to maintain
> > according to our standards but since you didn't went (yet) through
> > full NM, we don't trust you on working on anything you'd want".
>
> Err, I am not su
On 15 Apr 2006, Raphael Hertzog uttered the following:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> We'll never tell that! We just tell "we trust you to maintain
>>> according to our standards but since you didn't went (yet) through
>>> full NM, we don't trust you on working on anything you
Re: Michael Banck 2006-04-12 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 01:25:28AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Could you report such sponsors, so we may take their
> > sponsorship privileges away?
>
> There's no technical way to do this (yet), as far as I can see.
Iirc one deve
Re: Raphael Hertzog 2006-04-12 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> - first require each appliacnt to document their contribution when
> registering on nm.debian.org. Then the FD checks if it's enough
> or not. If not, he's immediately put on hold and the applicant can come
> back a few months later (unless
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> 1.1.1 Applicants [...]
> Time delays and poor communication were most annoying.
From an AM point of view, clueless and inexperienced applicants are most
annoying. They need much hand-holding and close supervision, s
Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Heya,
> * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060411 18:40]:
>> 2.1 Multiple advocates
>> --
>>
>> Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking about
>> two). This should get the number of people advocated with a
Thijs Kinkhorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Thanks for this initiative; I'd just decided to not get involved in the
> threads on -newmaint anymore because even though I feel strongly about
> the issue, the threads were just a repeat of themselves. However, your
> mail seems to be different, in th
Heya,
I'm trying to only address those parts of your mail that I haven't
spoken about in other places in this thread - if you feel something is
missing, ask again, please :)
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, 11 Apr 2006, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Quite a lot of applican
"Margarita Manterola" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 4/11/06, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 2.1 Multiple advocates
>> --
> I agree with the rest of the suggestions, but I'm not sure that I
> agree with this one... I can think of two cases where this cou
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 06:40:34PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> 2.1 Multiple advocates
>> --
[...]
> We discussed this a bit on IRC, and feedback seemed positive, so I'll
> comment here as well. I don't think having multip
Raphael Hertzog <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
>> Well, the idea has been proposed some times now. It has its advantages,
>> but there are still some problems - updating a page on wiki.d.o takes
>> time [1], so they tend to become outdated.
> If it
On Sun, 16 Apr 2006, Christoph Berg wrote:
> As I said on IRC, I would be interested myself to have such a central
> place to store my NM communication. What I don't want is any tool that
> would be used to check if a particular AM is inactive, slacking,
> unresponsive etc. Every AM whom I've asked
* Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060416 23:08]:
> Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > * Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060411 18:40]:
> >> 2.1 Multiple advocates
> >> --
> >>
> >> Ask for more than one advocate (at the moment, I'm thinking ab
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 05:25:13PM +0200, Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt wrote:
> It sounds like a good idea, but has many drawbacks:
> * We have no clear guidelines for advocates. This should be improved,
>I'll probably work on that in the next few weeks.
> * We have no process that allows us to tak
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 11:50:46PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
>
> This is already settled by the constitution: voting rights are by
> definition exactly with the DDs.
>
> The question is just: When do we consider people to be DDs? This is not
> really defined, and we could make the gates more op
Marc 'HE' Brockschmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Suggestion: Ask advocates to take on the formative/educational
> > part of the current AM role and prepare a summary in a given
> > format about the applicant. The summary could then be used as
> > the basis for sim
On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 10:57:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > For instance, for voting, I think the process of establishing the
> > identity of one's PGP key should be enough. If Debian wants to
> > continue as a technical meritocracy, the votes could be weighed with
> > the "amount of con
On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Panu Kalliokoski wrote:
> Now seriously, the reasons why a package in Debian is quite different
> from a Debian package outside of Debian should be well-known enough:
> ease of search and use for users and infrastructure for packaging (such
> as the BTS).
We all agree on this
On Tue, Apr 18, 2006 at 05:05:07PM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> I want more people working for Debian, I want more free software
> available, but I don't want that at any cost. I'm ready to make changes
> (even some important change) but by experience I know that this work only
> if you graduall
On 18 Apr 2006, Panu Kalliokoski uttered the following:
> On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 10:57:46PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>>> For instance, for voting, I think the process of establishing the
>>> identity of one's PGP key should be enough. If Debian wants to
>>> continue as a technical meritocr
On Wed, Apr 19, 2006 at 11:57:47PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> The weights, currently, are 0, and 1.0.
> > ... but they don't reflect very much the amount of contribution
> > people have made.
> Voting is not based on contributions. (Hint: Linus and RMS
> can't vote).
My point was
On 21 Apr 2006, Panu Kalliokoski uttered the following:
> My main point is: we would do well to follow the same principle of
> openness everywhere that we do on our mailing lists and BTS. I
> don't think it would hurt Debian. Voting is also a way to make
> contribution, and a much less dangerous
[Panu Kalliokoski]
> Now seriously, the reasons why a package in Debian is quite different
> from a Debian package outside of Debian should be well-known enough:
> ease of search and use for users and infrastructure for packaging
> (such as the BTS).
Those are minor things compared to the reputat
On Sat, Apr 22, 2006 at 10:15:20PM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> Besides, there is no value in a wide-open voting system. This is
> called an "Internet poll" and the results generally reflect whatever
> websites or blogs happen to publicise it.
Not even that. Microsoft once rigged a poll on the
1 - 100 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
