Sam Hartman writes ("Re: metaphors and feminism"): > I always assumed debian member was a term that included developer and > maintainer. > I'm all for Debian member replacing developer, but if so, I'd like a > term that encompasses maintainer and developer.
There are at least the following statuses/roles: 1. "Debian Developer" as per the constitution. 2. "DM" aka "Debian Maintainer", ie someone in the DM keyring 3. "Maintainer:" or "Uploader:" in some source package 4. Other contributors You can vote in GRs and DPL elections if you are 1. You become 1 by going through the NM process, which is supposed to guage your technical and nontechnical suitability. You can upload a particular package without needing sponsorship if you are 1; or are 2, and also 3 for the package in question. You usually become 2 by demonstrating a track record of good contributions in role 3. You may make management decisions[*] with respect to a particular package if you are 3; you are also then primarily responsible for preparing new versions, although you need a sponsor to upload them unless you are 1 or 2 as well. Your comment was ambiguous as to what you meant by `maintainer': did you mean 2 or 3 ? I think Paul has been using `member' to mean only 1. I think that is appropriate: `member' is then highest status that is not membership of some special group. 3 is usually called `maintainer'. `Maintainer' is actually right for this role: it refers to the responsibility and authority for package. So we need a different term for 2. Lots of organisations use `associate'. And 2 are specially authorised. Hence my suggestions of Authorised/Approved Debian Maintainer Associate Debian Member I think the former is better because the status 2 implies only a technical authority, not a sociopolitical authority. Thanks, Ian. [*] By `management decisions' I mean, for example: giving go-ahead for an NMU; approving/disapproving proposed patches; deciding what VCS and packaging workflow should be used; helping choose other members of the package team; filing a removal request; deciding on a bug severity; negotiating with those handling other packages. If there are others listed as Maintainer/Uploader then these decisions are collective. And most are subject to possible review by eg release or ftp team, etc. But, this is the most usual kind of authority in Debian and it is not gatekept by any kind of access control mechanism; rather like any management decision, it is a kind of authority honoured by humans rather than computers. -- Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own. If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.