On Wed, 26 Sep 2007 16:17:52 +0200 Patrick Schoenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But OTOH you say: Hey, those Debian Developers that have /not/ been > checked have proven their qualification on their own, without anyone > ever checking this like you do with a NM-application. The work of those DD's is constantly reviewed and checked by other DD's - during mass bug filing, NMU's, bug triage etc.etc. > Again: I really really think that the NM-Process is a good thing and i > really think it has to be done well, but then you cannot argue /this/ > way for people who didn't need to go through this procedure. Hopefully, > I now found a way to tell you, what I meant. The procedure is constantly evolving - it was different 5 years ago to how it was 2 years ago and how it is today. The only way to proceed is to ensure that DD's who were accepted long ago are as up to date as new DD's via mailing lists, standards versions and policy etc. Ongoing work within Debian is a continuing re-evaluation of each active DD by other DD's (and users). The process of learning does not stop upon acceptance, it is an ongoing process of keeping up to date with changes across Debian. >From what little I've seen on debian-private, it is this ongoing workload of staying up to date that makes the difference when an inactive DD is thinking about leaving the project due to a lack of time. DD's who were accepted many years ago are just as conscientious as new DD's. Staying up to date after acceptance is a trickle process - it is completely impractical to try to require ongoing examination of such a process. Old or new, if a DD makes a wrong call on a mailing list or in a bug report, there's usually someone who will point it out. :-) That's how peer review works - not by continual external examination but by ongoing review by those who are in the same situation. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
pgpFDGzPntHFM.pgp
Description: PGP signature
