On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 10:47:22PM +0200, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis) wrote: > On Sunday 29 July 2007, Clint Adams wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 08:12:51PM +0200, Reinhard Tartler wrote: > > > The top complaints I'm reading from this thread are: > > > > > > 1. it has been proposed by AJ > > > 2. it is too detailed (the micromanagment argument) > > > > I'd better complain then. > > > > 1. It creates another class of Debian participant when we should be > > striving to have fewer classes. > > Does it really? as pointed out earlier in threads about this we have 900+ > non-DD maintainers. so it seems to me that this "class of Debian > participant" already exists. All the proposal does in that respect is make > the existing relation official.
* how many are still active ?
* how many are actually DD that never reuploaded thoses packages with
their @d.o address ?
* how many are actually DD that do not use their @d.o address ?
* how many are not in NM ?
* how many would be in NM if NM wasn't completely outrageously
complicated and long ?
> > 2. It empowers the wrong people.
>
> It empowers a group of current contributors to do their contribution in a
> more efficient manner. By doing so it also free's up time of other
> contributors playing middleman for the first group. How is this in any way
> a bad thing?
He wasn't thinking of the DMs but the people that would deal with the
ring I think (but I may be wrong).
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OOO http://www.madism.org
pgpP8riZXtwCI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
