On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:03:13PM +0200, Gerfried Fuchs wrote: > * Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-10-23 09:59:09 CEST]: > > First of all, a suggestion from me. I would like to change names a bit, > > so there are names for some groups as well. Here's my proposal: > > This is misleading because a DME is (also) an enhanced version of a DM, > i.e. a DME is allowed to upload their own packages and can be a > developing contributor.
Not according to my reading of Joerg's proposal. People go from DC to DME. It is possible to also do DM, which means that person has two roles (DM and DME). > Your distinction doesn't make it clear between > DDs that can upload any package and those that can only upload a > specific set of packages. In my terms, it would mean someone is DNDM and DDC at the same time. If it is expected that this would happen a lot, it can get a name by itself, but I thought I was using enough new names already. :-) > Where Joerg's proposal (which I wholeheartly > support) made the clear distinction between the full DD state that isn't > limited in any sense and the limited upload allowance (even as limited > as no package at all) you draw the line between no-upload right and any > upload right, even limited. I don't think I changed anything in the roles, I only changed the names: DC <=> DNDC DM <=> DDC DME <=> DNDM DD <=> DDM And I add names for groups, so you don't have to say "DC and DM" or "DME and DD". At least I did not intend to change the meaning, I am just worried that DC/DM/DME/DD are not very logical names, while the underlying structure is in fact two orthogonal elements: - Is this person a member? -> D*C / D*M - Does this person do package development? -> DND[CM] / DD[CM] And because that last question is often irrelevant, I propose to use standard names for people depending on their member-status only (DC/DM). Finally, I think it is useful to have a name for all people in Debian, which is why I added DK. I'm not sure if it's useful, and I'm not happy with the name, nor with the fact that it completely ignores sponsored maintainers. So perhaps that last one should be removed. It'd probably never be used anyway. :-) > Personally I am not sure if your distinction is the better one, > personally I prefer the one that Joerg proposed. I didn't intend to change his proposal; I'm happy with the roles he describes, I just want to give them different names. > About the naming, I'm not sure if we really should change everything > everywhere completely, I don't see the real gain, The gain is that we're finally done with the confusion about people in Debian. Currently we have "new maintainers" who are "debian developers", and "debian maintainers" who are not. Now we'll add "debian members", who are not "debian developers", even though all developers are members of the project (but not considered "debian member" as in DME). Also, people who hear the full names will be confused by "debian member"/DM which are two totally different things. > rather the drawback that we will be faced with endlessly outdated > documentations that won't get noticed about using the old terms. Yes, I agree that this is a drawback, and we should not lightly do this. However, given the current confusion about the naming already, this seems to be the perfect moment to solve it: new names are added, the whole thing will be changing anyway. The current proposal is to make things even less clear. My proposal is to accept the extra work of getting old documents up to date (or accepting the "this is an old document, it uses the old naming" excuse for not-so-important documents). So just to be clear: I am, like you, totally in favour of the proposal. I just see the opportunity to fix an other problem along the way. If people disagree that the names should be changed, I'm still in favour of the proposal. :-) Thanks, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://a82-93-13-222.adsl.xs4all.nl/e-mail.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
