On 10198 March 1977, you wrote: >> - We wont accept[5] applicants who have only one signature on their GPG-key >> if that signature is made by the advocate. If it has only a signature >> from the advocate at least another one from the web-of-trust is >> needed. Not neccessarly a DD to sign the key, any other well-connected >> key is sufficient. >> Applicants will be put on hold until this is fixed, but it shouldn't >> last too long. >> This is to avoid theoretical things against us/the applicants, that >> they are "faked" by the advocate, by providing one or more other >> signatures from different people. > I don't get it. Do you have a concrete example that makes this necessary? > It seems more and more difficult to become member of Debian, which is > after all a volonteer-only project. Why trying to more and more discourage > people to contribute?
Thats not really a high or difficult thing we request. If you read it -
any other signature of the global web of trust is ok, not neccessarily a
DD sig.
>> - Also not accepted are people without traceable actions for
>> Debian. Examples of this include
>> - having only one package in the archive, with only one upload,
>> - packages with dead upstream and no visible changes in Debian either,
>> - a poor or non-existent handling of their bugs for the package(s).
> What about translators? Isn't it time to give them a real status?
> They definitely aren't second-class contributors.
Translators are some sort of Documentation NMs, and we already have
something defined for them and in use since some time ago.
And that above is a list of *examples*, not the one and only that fits.
--
bye Joerg
Die Dicke zum Spiegel: Spieglein, Spieglein an der Wand, wer ist die
Sch�nste im ganzen Land?
Der Spiegel: Geh doch mal weg, ich kann ja gar nichts sehen!
pgpnhqanSh6OS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
