On Sun, 2008-02-03 at 22:31 +0100, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > He repeats at lengths that he cares way more about quantity rather > than quality, and always choses to upload new packages instead of fixing > bugs, and all what he cares about is that a new upstream enters > unstable, now matter how.
I know nothing of Adam and so can't comment on his suitability for DM one way of the other. However, some of objections you raise seem to me to to be applicable to a DD, not a DM. As far as I can see, becoming a DM makes it easier to maintain your existing packages - nothing more. A DM can't upload new packages, so granting him DM status doesn't mean he can suddenly flood the archive with them. Unlike a DD a DM has no voting rights, no special access to lists or infrastructure. So if Adam's views are not consistent with Debian, granting him DM status does not change the status quo. All becoming a DM does is give the person the ability to upload newer versions of his packages. If Adam can be trusted to do that well, in a way that does not cause additional work for everyone else, then IMHO he should be given DM rights. Doing so will increase the quality of Debian. You imply that Adam can't be trusted to do that. If so, Adam should not be given DM rights. If he can't yet maintain packages well he should not be given DM rights even if he is a shining champion of Debian's ideals, even if he is a brilliant contributor to all Debian's lists, even if he is excellent judge of which packages should be in Debian and even if he was a reliable maintainer of Debian's infrastructure. If he does all those things well but can't maintain a package giving him DM rights will reduce the quality of the Debian archive and create work for everyone else. Personally, I think splitting up responsibilities like this is a good idea. A person who maintains packages is not necessarily good at maintaining infrastructure and Debian doesn't require them to be. Yet Debian does seem to require people who maintain the infrastructure to pass the "good at maintaining packages" test. Moving further afield voting rights should be tied to whether the person up-holds the Debian ideals and spirit. I don't see how being good maintainer, or organising conferences, contributing to Debian legal, or doing translations or any other particular job can be used as the only indication of whether someone should be awarded voting rights. Obviously regularly contributing to Debian by doing one or more of those jobs is a requirement, but the current emphasis on just one of them isn't healthy. Splitting DM from the DD role is one step in this direction. I am hopeful Debian will move further along this line. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
