On sam, 2007-06-30 at 16:30 +0200, Joey Schulze wrote: > It would probably be helpful to clean the listing from those in NM. I guess I know a way to "clean" them :) Regards, -- -- Yves-Alexis
On 27.06.2007 13:41 schrieb Anthony Towns: > Seconds, comments or amendments appreciated. Since some people seem to prefer a simpler solution without a DM class but simply limited upload rights (as you proposed for the DMs) for NMs after a certain point in their NM career, I wonder how many seconds such a proposal would get. Cheers, Bastian -- -- Bastian Venthur http://venthur.de Debian Developer venthur at debian org
Hi mates
I'd like to offer an alternative gr proposal. I read the whole thread (took me
most of the night :( ) and after some discussions on IRC, I come up with this
proposal.
I took ajs proposal and modified it to fit my understanding of DM. See the
patch below the proposal, together with my comments for more information.
I avoid repeating most of the arguments, which were send several times in
dozens of mails. This is just my proposal and let's see, if some people want
to support it, or if we just forget about it :)
==== Debian Maintainers Proposal ====
The Debian Project endorses the concept of "Debian Maintainers" with
limited access, and resolves that:
1) A new keyring will be created, called the "Debian maintainers keyring".
It will be initially maintained by:
* the Debian Account Managers (Joerg Jaspert, James Troup)
* the New-maintainer Front Desk (Christoph Berg, Marc Brockschmidt,
Brian Nelson)
* the Debian Keyring maintenaners (James Troup, Michael Beattie)
It will be known as the normal people behind the NM process.
Changes to the team may be made by the DPL under the normal rules for
delegations or if the teams accept new members.
The keyring will be packaged for Debian, and regularly uploaded
(Continue reading)
Hi Steffen, On Thu, Jul 05, 2007 at 04:05:57PM +0200, Steffen Joeris wrote: > I'd like to offer an alternative gr proposal. I read the whole thread (took me > most of the night :( ) and after some discussions on IRC, I come up with this > proposal. > I took ajs proposal and modified it to fit my understanding of DM. See the > patch below the proposal, together with my comments for more information. > I avoid repeating most of the arguments, which were send several times in > dozens of mails. This is just my proposal and let's see, if some people want > to support it, or if we just forget about it :) I see the following weaknesses in your proposal compared with AJ's: - Only people who are going through NM qualify. This reduces the set of maintainers benefitting from it to those who have the time, interest, and skill to go through an NM process which is deliberately heavyweight *because* it's used for brokering access to DD status. - Commit access to the keyring is only granted to those individuals who are already part of the NM process. This is effectively a conflict of interest; while I agree that the DAM and FD should have access to the DM keyring, particularly for the purpose of revoking privileges of people who they believe shouldn't be able to upload packages on their own, if they're the *only* ones with access to the DM keyring then any time spent adding DMs is time taken away from adding DDs. Aside from not addressing all the use cases of the original proposal, I can't imagine the setup you've described actually getting enough use to be(Continue reading)
Hello Raphael and *, ############################################################ # ATTENTION: I am currently NOT in Strasbourg because # # haveing the last 4 weeks of my military # # service and can not reply in short delays. # ############################################################ I am new package maintainer and have build over 280 different packages successfuly for my customers since several years. Am 2007-06-21 19:36:18, schrieb Raphael Hertzog: > On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Joey Schulze wrote: > > Therefore I assume that the answer would be "zero", i.e. it's > > the same time involvement required to maintain a package for > > both a DD and a DM. > > Sure. A given task is the same work for everybody (or almost). > > > 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 something which is true of everybody, but it's > certainly true for a significant part of small contributors) I definitivly can not agree with this, since for me it look like a "School", "Education-Center" or "University" where I NEED to learn something to be able to do something.(Continue reading)
* Michelle Konzack (linux4michelle <at> freenet.de) [070709 15:27]: > I am new package maintainer and have build over 280 different > packages successfuly for my customers since several years. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but you're one of the people who I don't want to upload to the Debian archive. Any proposal which will allow uploads from you automatically gets a NO from me. Cheers, Andi -- -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Hi Steve Sorry for the delay, I just arrived at College :( > I see the following weaknesses in your proposal compared with AJ's: > > - Only people who are going through NM qualify. This reduces the set of > maintainers benefitting from it to those who have the time, interest, and > skill to go through an NM process which is deliberately heavyweight > *because* it's used for brokering access to DD status. I do not see this as a weakness. My gr proposes the opposite and wants the people to at least pass some sort of NM to show that they know about some important parts, such as license stuff ... > - Commit access to the keyring is only granted to those individuals who are > already part of the NM process. This is effectively a conflict of > interest; while I agree that the DAM and FD should have access to the DM > keyring, particularly for the purpose of revoking privileges of people > who they believe shouldn't be able to upload packages on their own, if > they're the *only* ones with access to the DM keyring then any time spent > adding DMs is time taken away from adding DDs. Atm the FD queue is always empty and processed pretty fast. Of course, this is not the same for AMs and I agree with you, that there might be some more AMs needed. Although it needs to be considered, that some DMs are just on their way to become DDs. Anyway, you might be right that more AMs are needed, but I do not see that FD/DAM causes a problem atm (note that FD has access to the keyring and does not necessarily need DAM in my proposal). So far no DD seconded my proposal, therefore I am not quite sure if it is worth to continue discussing it. I will try to answer to your arguments, but(Continue reading)
Steffen Joeris wrote:
> I took ajs proposal and modified it to fit my understanding of DM. See the
> patch below the proposal, together with my comments for more information.
> I avoid repeating most of the arguments, which were send several times in
> dozens of mails. This is just my proposal and let's see, if some people want
> to support it, or if we just forget about it :)
>
> ==== Debian Maintainers Proposal ====
>
> The Debian Project endorses the concept of "Debian Maintainers" with
> limited access, and resolves that:
>
> 1) A new keyring will be created, called the "Debian maintainers keyring".
> It will be initially maintained by:
>
>
> * the Debian Account Managers (Joerg Jaspert, James Troup)
> * the New-maintainer Front Desk (Christoph Berg, Marc Brockschmidt,
> Brian Nelson)
> * the Debian Keyring maintenaners (James Troup, Michael Beattie)
~~~~~~~~~~~~
> It will be known as the normal people behind the NM process.
> Changes to the team may be made by the DPL under the normal rules for
> delegations or if the teams accept new members.
>
> The keyring will be packaged for Debian, and regularly uploaded
> to unstable.
>
>
(Continue reading)
[Same proposal, this time signed.] Hi, Since I don't agree that we don't need a new class of contributors but very much like the idea to grant some of the proposed DM rights to New Maintainers after a certain point in their NM career, I propose a different solution. The idea is to grant NMs limited upload rights after they're certified "almost DDs", in a stage where they usually just have to wait (quiet long) for their AM-report, FD and DAM. I think the best point is when the AM confirmed that they have passed all the tests but hasn't yet written the report. After the AM thinks his applicant has successfully passed all tests, the AM can upload the NM's key to a new NM-keyring which will enable the new limited upload rights to the NM. The keyring maintainers, FD and DAM still have a veto right remove the applicant again which does not necessarily imply that the NM himself is rejected. AMs are only allowed to add or remove their own applicants to the keyring. Please comment, send patches or second. === BEGIN OF THE PROPOSAL === The Debian Projects grants limited upload rights to New Maintainers(Continue reading)
Hi, Since I don't agree that we don't need a new class of contributors but very much like the idea to grant some of the proposed DM rights to New Maintainers after a certain point in their NM career, I propose a different solution. The idea is to grant NMs limited upload rights after they're certified "almost DDs", in a stage where they usually just have to wait (quiet long) for their AM-report, FD and DAM. I think the best point is when the AM confirmed that they have passed all the tests but hasn't yet written the report. After the AM thinks his applicant has successfully passed all tests, the AM can upload the NM's key to a new NM-keyring which will enable the new limited upload rights to the NM. The keyring maintainers, FD and DAM still have a veto right remove the applicant again which does not necessarily imply that the NM himself is rejected. AMs are only allowed to add or remove their own applicants to the keyring. Please comment, send patches or second. === BEGIN OF THE PROPOSAL === The Debian Projects grants limited upload rights to New Maintainers after their Application Manager (AM): * confirmed that the New Maintainer successfully passed the ID-, T&S-(Continue reading)
RSS Feed22 | |
|---|---|
29 | |
340 | |
1 | |
5 | |
1 | |
1 | |
1 | |
4 | |
65 | |
7 | |
116 | |
4 | |
1 | |
2 | |
1 | |
6 | |
10 | |
3 | |
9 | |
9 | |
17 | |
58 | |
8 | |
8 | |
6 | |
12 | |
34 | |
116 | |
4 | |
2 | |
3 | |
2 | |
58 | |
399 | |
8 | |
19 | |
2 | |
12 | |
1 | |
20 | |
80 | |
31 | |
315 | |
7 | |
159 | |
519 | |
404 | |
302 | |
27 | |
33 | |
120 | |
251 | |
20 | |
1 | |
28 | |
55 | |
15 | |
128 | |
202 | |
235 | |
140 | |
76 | |
381 | |
313 | |
1 | |
6 | |
416 | |
598 | |
341 | |
38 | |
55 | |
1 | |
50 | |
505 | |
732 | |
335 | |
95 | |
68 | |
2 | |
7 | |
41 | |
893 | |
126 | |
6 | |
4 | |
8 | |
3 | |
376 | |
214 | |
443 | |
411 | |
1028 | |
186 | |
1395 | |
72 | |
239 | |
160 | |
72 | |
15 | |
6 | |
87 | |
259 | |
84 | |
126 | |
128 | |
9 | |
114 | |
370 | |
71 | |
6 | |
12 | |
1 | |
1 | |
17 | |
91 | |
108 |
