Lars Wirzenius <l...@liw.fi> writes: > Rationale: DEP texts are not the places were to frantically _develop_ > franticly the actual DEP, but just places where to record the state of > the art of the proposal, as it has been agreed upon by other means > (e.g., consensus on mailing list, as we usually do). In the same vein, > the drivers should usually act just as secretaries for a given > proposal and it doesn't look like that wide commit access rights are > needed to that end. > > What do other people in the project think?
(In case it matters, I'm not a DD but am a member of the project.) I think it's quite reasonable to have a DD as the party responsible for committing DEP revisions, and anyone who wants to affect the process can either work to gain DD status or gain a working relationship (through sponsorship of patches) with one. This is analogous to only allowing package uploads from a DD, and anyone who wants to contribute packages can either work to gain DD status or gain a working relationship (through sponsorship of package uploads) with one. I think that's a reasonable risk management policy for the power to upload changes to the canonical repository, whether of packages or DEP documents. -- \ “The illiterate of the future will not be the person who cannot | `\ read. It will be the person who does not know how to learn.” | _o__) —Alvin Toffler | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
