On Thu, 21 Jun 2007, Bastian Venthur wrote: > > In short, this DM status is complementary to NM. It's not working around > > any deficiency in the NM process. > > I really doubt that. If I read Anthony's links he have in his GR > proposal, it all sounds very much like a workaround for the problems > with our NM process. Especially the second one "Reforming the NM process". > > And the main question is is still open: Why do we need this DM status? > Which problem does it solve, if not the ones with our NM process?
So I'll repeat my arguments anyway (if you can't be bothered to reread the archives): 1/ I know people who want to maintain package but don't want to be DD. The time involvement required to be DD is far bigger to the one required to be able to maintain properly a single package. And I don't want to lower the barrier to become DD because the role of DD are critical in the success of Debian (while the role a maintainer of a single package is not). 2/ The NM process itself may not be perfect, but the results are good. If you consider the NM process a failure, why don't you accept the DM idea as an improvement to the NM process where people can start contributing earlier and waste less sponsoring resources ? More details there: http://lists.debian.org/debian-project/2007/03/msg00146.html If you want to improve the NM process, fine, the NM team awaits your help. But don't block other initiatives to improve Debian for reasons which are dubious. 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]
