On Thu, 2003-02-06 at 20:28, Michael Scherer wrote:
> > But demand high quality for what they deliver. Otherwise, send it back.
> Well, of course.
> Peer reviews, but this would say tht some developpers hav more power than 
> others.
> All developers should be treated as equals, but, some of them should be "team 
> chief" , or something like that...
> > >>How do we decide who become developer, what will be their
> > >> responsabilities, their ressources ?
> > >
> > >I dunno.  How does debian do it?
> >
> > I beleive a maintainer per package. See:
> Well, we could try something like morethan one developper per package.
> Actually, in Debian, only the packager can change something.
> If you take a look to the changelog of any of our package, this is not the way 
> it works. This works for debian since they have a lot of developpers.
> I think we should try something different for here, something more flexible.

It's wrong! If the package has a security flaw, the Debian Security Team
can do a NMU.In "bug squashing parties" maintainers usually do NMUs.

NMU = Non Maintainer Upload

Do you known about Co-Maintainers ? :)

See, i'm an apllicant, i've some packages sponsored by a
maintainer(developer).I'm not officially a developer, only a applicant
waiting the DAM approval in the nm queue.But i've packages in the

> Maybe, a team of developpers for some category of package ?
> > I also like their "package adoption" system:
> > http://www.debian.org/devel/wnpp/
> Package adoption is great, but, to orphan a package is not really seen as a 
> good thing by others developpers.
> > >Maybe some sort of wiki system.  That could organize people and tasks,
> > >and let new people sign up, and see what needs to be done.
> >
> > Just like the debian system. I wrote to the cooker list last week
> > describing a web based package submission system, see:
> > http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/cooker/2003-01/msg02998.php
> Well, a wiki may not be the right thing.
> A lot of people tends to think that a wiki is good, but, few have tried. 
> Of course I have never tried :-) , but I don't think this could be better than 
> a real groupware system.
> > >How can we do that?
> >
> > Q: when can we do that? And who will make it happen... There are a lot
> > of bright people on the list that can help to make it happen. How do we
> > first define an architecture for this. 
> > Produce a document first?
> Right.
> First a name for the document :-)
> > PS: Some friends have always argued that the debian way is the only
> > sustainable way to go. If mdk is going to do it just like debian, why
> > not fold and move the idea's and effort into making debian a better
> > distro instead of duplicating the effort?

Sorry, but i've the same view!

> What about doing it the same way than Netbsd and FreeBSD.
> Debian is ported on a lot of processor, we can focus on a smaller subset.
> They have goals for each release in term of version of software, we can have 
> more frequent releases, based on time.
> This is possible, just take a look at the openbsd life cycle, one release each 
> 6 months.

Do you known anything about Debian subprojects like: Debian Edu or
Debian Desktop? You can help with the new installer, called: d-i based
on cdebconf and start a new subproject or enhance a existing one.

> If we clone debian, this is useless. But we can try something different.


Just for fun:

Gustavo Franco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Reply via email to