I find most of this mail very unfortunate, but since I'm one of the people who doesn't like the current proposal, I wanted to call out this point:
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > ] 2.3 Separate upload permissions, system accounts and voting rights > ] ------------------------------------------------------------------ > ] > ] This one is a long-time goal. There's a discussion about this at the > ] moment anyway, but the problem is known for a long time. By splitting > ] these three things apart, we gain a lot of flexibility and could solve > ] things like sponsoring on the way. This is mainly based on a proposal > ] Anthony Towns made to me in private. > -- http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/04/msg00006.html I still agree that this is a good idea. I don't believe that this proposal does this. Rather than tackling the definition of DD and providing a reasonable split where people can get only the privileges they need and want to qualify for, it creates a completely separate process with a completely separate result. It in essence forks NM rather than integrating this idea into NM as an alternate outcome of the same process or as a possibly intermediate step. For example, if a DM wants to later become a full DD, so far as I can tell they get no automatic credit for being a DM. While an AM could take that into account, it shouldn't have to rely on an AM to evaluate that. It should be a natural next step that can be taken by people who want to. I'm also not fond of the emphasis that the DM proposal has. I don't want to see the focus be on people who just want to maintain a few packages and don't want to deal with / pay attention to / learn about the rest of Debian. I'm happy to have people not get general upload access until they have passed checks on their ability to deal with NMUs, shared libraries, or other things that they don't care about for their own packages, but I think *everyone* with upload permission needs to go through P&P (not just the stripped down version in this proposal) and understand that they're making a committment to the project as a whole, not just to some individual packages. I gather from the rest of your mail that you don't feel like you can effect change in NM and that's why you decided to fork the process in this proposal, but I at least feel from Joerg's response that this is excessively pessimistic. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
