On Tue, 18 Apr 2006, Panu Kalliokoski wrote: > Now seriously, the reasons why a package in Debian is quite different > from a Debian package outside of Debian should be well-known enough: > ease of search and use for users and infrastructure for packaging (such > as the BTS).
We all agree on this one. But we do not agree "on more packages without quality check" which comes down to "more maintainers without NM checks". I want more people working for Debian, I want more free software available, but I don't want that at any cost. I'm ready to make changes (even some important change) but by experience I know that this work only if you gradually work in that direction. So discussing disruptive changes like you mentionned always seems like a very bad idea to me. > is, however, I'm lead to believe that a different set of rules would > serve the community (and me, but not just me) better. That is, I'm > trying to contribute to the rules. I might be wrong, but I'd be even > more wrong if I didn't say what I think. You're discussing things which are too far away from the day to day reality... this doesn't help us much go forward. > Furthermore, what I was saying is that those DD's are doing great work > in spite of alleged lack of social skills, and that entering Debian (or > instead almost any volunteer community) should not be prevented by a > lack of social skills. You can't discuss at this level. Would Debian be better if X or Y was here or not here ? With specific names, you can think about the question. If X or Y are anonymous, it doesn't make sense any more. (And putting names to X and Y will create a flameware since publicly discussing of the abilities of someone is not very good netiquette) > > - write some tools to facilitate review and sponsorship > > - use SVN repo for contributors so that we can see their work > > over time > > - web interface to follow the set of packages (with a lit "need upload", > > "need review", etc.) > > http://wiki.debian.org/CollaborativeMaintenance > > Nice to see projects like this. It won't help the problem, though, that > there still need to be sponsors and there are too few of them. I lack > the sponsor point of view, but the existing infrastructure in Debian for > sponsorship is already very good IMO. By making sponsorship easier we > can improve things but only up to a point. [...] > > NM process is not about teaching, we don't have the resources for that > To me it seems to be vice versa: I've received a lot of friendly > teaching on [EMAIL PROTECTED], but no sponsors :) So you say: 1/ we need to have a process of teaching 2/ teaching on -mentors works quite good 3/ sponsors are difficult to find 4/ but improving the process of sponsorship doesn't improve much Don't you see how that looks incoherent? > I received when all I was asking for was sponsors. This is good, of > course, but your attitude seems wrong to me: as if the problem was in > the aspiring NM if people give feedback to him/her. I never said that. Nobody does the perfect thing the first time. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux : http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
