Seconded.
also sprach Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007.06.21.1450 +0100]:
Hey all,
So here's a proposal for the Debian Maintainers idea that's been floating
around for some time now [0]. I've drafted it while lying in bed in
the Budget Backpackers before wandering up to debconf, so
Il giorno gio, 21/06/2007 alle 17.37 +0200, Bastian Venthur ha scritto:
So, why such a complicated GR introducing second class DDs? Just grant a
few more rights to our NMs and try to improve the NM process in the long
run and everybody will be happy.
Esquisitely true.
--
Federico Di
Anthony Towns wrote:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring.
It will be initially maintained in alioth subversion using the jetring
tool, with commit priveleges initially assigned to:
FWIW, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of a GR that specifies what tools
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
Il giorno gio, 21/06/2007 alle 17.37 +0200, Bastian Venthur ha scritto:
So, why such a complicated GR introducing second class DDs? Just grant a
few more rights to our NMs and try to improve the NM process in the long
run and everybody
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Joey Hess wrote:
Anthony Towns wrote:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring.
It will be initially maintained in alioth subversion using the jetring
tool, with commit priveleges initially assigned to:
FWIW, I'm uncomfortable
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
Il giorno gio, 21/06/2007 alle 17.37 +0200, Bastian Venthur ha scritto:
So, why such a complicated GR introducing second class DDs? Just grant a
few more rights to our NMs and try to improve the NM process in the long
run
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
That's precisely why it's written initially twice in that sentence.
initially is ambiguous.
Also, I don't want a precident of voting on what tools developers must
use. We already have enough bad GR precidents. :-P
--
see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
1/ I know people who want to maintain package but don't want to be DD.
The time involvement required to be DD is far bigger to the one required
to be able to maintain properly a single package. And I don't want to
lower the barrier to become DD because the role of DD
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:50:59PM +0100, Anthony Towns wrote:
Hey all,
So here's a proposal for the Debian Maintainers idea that's been floating
around for some time now [0]. I've drafted it while lying in bed in
the Budget Backpackers before wandering up to debconf, so it's just my
take
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Bastian Venthur wrote:
In short, this DM status is complementary to NM. It's not working around
any deficiency in the NM process.
I really doubt that. If I read Anthony's links he have in his GR
proposal, it all sounds very much like a workaround
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Joey Schulze wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
1/ I know people who want to maintain package but don't want to be DD.
The time involvement required to be DD is far bigger to the one required
to be able to maintain properly a single package. And I don't want to
lower
On Thursday 21 June 2007 16:50, Anthony Towns wrote:
* multiple Debian developers have requested the individual's
removal for non-spurious reasons; eg, due to problematic
uploads, unfixed bugs, or being unreasonably difficult to
work with.
This by itself is too
Pierre Habouzit wrote:
Another question I have is that basically, I don't grok why it's
harder to give DM's uploads rights, than NM's an account.
DD implies an account on ~20 machines. Having only upload rights
does not imply this and the outcome of a fuckup in a .deb will
only cause an
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Bastian Venthur wrote:
I agree that there might be a few people who don't want to be a DD but a
DM although I really can't understand why, since both classes are almost
identical (day to day work wise) and the extra D almost comes for free
if you're already a DM: just
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
The time involvement required to be DD is far bigger to the one required
to be able to maintain properly a single package. And I don't want to
lower the barrier to become DD because the role of DD are critical in
the success of Debian (while the role a maintainer
Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
* multiple Debian developers have requested the individual's
removal for non-spurious reasons; eg, due to problematic
uploads, unfixed bugs, or being unreasonably difficult to
work with.
Also, expect many errors at least on the initial
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If you want to improve the NM process, fine, the NM team awaits your help.
But don't block other initiatives to improve Debian for reasons which
are dubious.
So my reasons are dubious? I guess I should let you vote for me and just
sign the ballot since your
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:57:36PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
If you want to improve the NM process, fine, the NM team awaits your help..
But don't block other initiatives to improve Debian for reasons which
are dubious.
That's very harsh, especially since either DM tries to address the
Hi,
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Joey Schulze wrote:
So I suggest you to not stand up against this proposition if you're not
convinced that this would negatively impact Debian. It might be that it
doesn't have as much success as I expect, but then we haven't lost much by
tring it out.
I wonder
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:50:59PM +0100, Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
2) The initial policy for an individual to be included in the keyring
will be:
* that the applicant acknowledges Debian's social contract,
free software guidelines, and machine usage policies.
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
1 It's a one time issue even if the time period involved can be quite
long and
A package maintainer that can't upload during one or two years and who has
to chase sponsors indefinitely will end up demotivated and won't finish his
NM process. (It's not
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 05:52:35PM +0100, Joey Hess wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
That's precisely why it's written initially twice in that sentence.
initially is ambiguous.
Err, it doesn't seem ambiguous to me: it'll start this way and may change
later... If you'd like to suggest other
On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 06:37:12PM +0200, Bastian Venthur wrote:
And the main question is is still open: Why do we need this DM status?
Which problem does it solve, if not the ones with our NM process?
The NM process is about making new DDs -- who participate fully in
the project, and
* Anthony Towns ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070621 16:03]:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring.
It will be initially maintained in alioth subversion using the jetring
tool, with commit priveleges initially assigned to:
* the Debian Account Managers
Anthony Towns [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
The Debian Project endorses the concept of Debian Maintainers with
limited access, and resolves to
s/resolves to/resolves/ # resolves to a new keyring will be created?
1) A new keyring will be created, called the Debian maintainers keyring.
It
On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Joey Schulze wrote:
Raphael Hertzog wrote:
A package maintainer that can't upload during one or two years and who has
to chase sponsors indefinitely will end up demotivated and won't finish his
NM process. (It's not something which is true of everybody, but it's
* Anthony Towns:
5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the
Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that keyring
provided:
* none of the uploaded packages are NEW
* the Maintainer: field of the uploaded .changes file
Anthony Towns wrote:
Err, it doesn't seem ambiguous to me: it'll start this way and may change
later... If you'd like to suggest other wording, you're welcome to...
If it's unambiguous, then the specification of what tools to use is
pointless, since it can change at any time, and so again, I am
Florian Weimer wrote:
* Anthony Towns:
5) The intial policy for the use of the Debian Maintainer keyring with the
Debian archive will be to accept uploads signed by a key in that keyring
provided:
* none of the uploaded packages are NEW
* the Maintainer: field of the
Joey Schulze wrote:
The NM process after all is meant to help new maintainers become
skilled maintainers of packages. If we want to get them maintain
packages without going through NM we should not create a new stage
but drop or restructure the NM process. IMHO
The same argument could be
Raphael Hertzog [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [...]
If you want to improve the NM process, fine, the NM team awaits your help.
Is that true? Is the NM team awaiting help to improve the process, or
is it only awaiting help to operate the current process?
Last year, I suggested improving the NM
31 matches
Mail list logo
