On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:14:03AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Am I the only one who has trouble -and getting laughed at- whenever I
> try to explain these to potential contributors?
>
> Can we _at least_ rename the NM process to be indicative of what it
> is?
Seconded.
Speaking with variou
Stefano Zacchiroli writes:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:14:03AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > Can we _at least_ rename the NM process to be indicative of what it
> > is?
Seconded.
> Speaking with various people about the ways they can join Debian, I've
> had several time the feeling that o
On 07/02/2010 11:14 PM, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
Am I the only one who has trouble -and getting laughed at- whenever I
try to explain these to potential contributors?
Can we _at least_ rename the NM process to be indicative of what it is?
It also took me some time to figure out correct meaning
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
> On 07/02/2010 11:14 PM, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> >Am I the only one who has trouble -and getting laughed at- whenever I
> >try to explain these to potential contributors?
> >
> >Can we _at least_ rename the NM process to be indica
Hi!
Am 05.07.2010 15:31, schrieb Jan Dittberner:
> In my opinion there should be a clear distinction between
>
> - Package maintainers
> - Debian maintainers (DM)
> - Debian developers (DD)
As they seem to be often used in a shortened version, is there any way,
we can prevent "Debian maintainer
Hi,
On Montag, 5. Juli 2010, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl wrote:
> As they seem to be often used in a shortened version, is there any way,
> we can prevent "Debian maintainers" and "Package maintainers" both to be
> maintainers?
rename "Debian maintainers" to "Debian uploaders"?
cheers,
H
Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:14:03AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
>> Am I the only one who has trouble -and getting laughed at- whenever I
>> try to explain these to potential contributors?
>>
>> Can we _at least_ rename the NM process to be indicative of what it
>> is?
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 07:21:08PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 12:14:03AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> >> Am I the only one who has trouble -and getting laughed at- whenever I
> >> try to explain these to potential contributors?
> >> C
Re: Steve Langasek 2010-07-05 <20100705164805.ga26...@dario.dodds.net>
> I haven't seen anyone propose a good name that it can be changed *to*.
> Shouldn't that be the first step?
It would probably be "New Developer". But before everyone rushes to
update lots of documents, let's try to implement
On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 19:32:33 +0200, Christoph Berg wrote:
> Re: Steve Langasek 2010-07-05 <20100705164805.ga26...@dario.dodds.net>
> > I haven't seen anyone propose a good name that it can be changed *to*.
> > Shouldn't that be the first step?
> It would probably be "New Developer". But before ev
Re: gregor herrmann 2010-07-05 <20100705174124.gj4...@belanna.comodo.priv.at>
> _If_ the membership stuff is changed; is anybody working on this
> issue currently?
It's on top of the NM TODO list, together with the website rewrite.
(Which is a precondition.)
Christoph
--
c...@df7cb.de | http://w
Jan Dittberner writes:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 02:57:12PM +0200, Ludovico Cavedon wrote:
> > On 07/02/2010 11:14 PM, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> > >Am I the only one who has trouble -and getting laughed at- whenever I
> > >try to explain these to potential contributors?
> > >
> > >Can we _at least_
I understand that any one who has an advocate can become a Debian
Maintainer.
So the Debian Maintainer as it is today could become a Debian
Contributor. Without any modification.
Everything relies on the advocation.
I have created http://wiki.debian.org/Maintainers/Discussion to have a
bett
Christoph Berg writes:
> Re: Steve Langasek 2010-07-05 <20100705164805.ga26...@dario.dodds.net>
>> I haven't seen anyone propose a good name that it can be changed *to*.
>> Shouldn't that be the first step?
> It would probably be "New Developer". But before everyone rushes to
> update lots of d
Holger Levsen writes:
> rename "Debian maintainers" to "Debian uploaders"?
As a Debian Maintainer, a significant power I *don't* have is that of
uploading (arbitrary) packages. So no, that would not be a good change
of terminology.
--
\ “We jealously reserve the right to be mistaken in
Russ Allbery writes:
> And in the process, PLEASE rename Debian Maintainer to something that
> isn't completely confusing given the existence of a Maintainer field
> in all of our packages
Isn't the very point of the Debian Maintainer role that it more
precisely does meet the definition of the r
On 07/06/2010 12:04 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> Holger Levsen writes:
>
>> rename "Debian maintainers" to "Debian uploaders"?
>
> As a Debian Maintainer, a significant power I *don't* have is that of
> uploading (arbitrary) packages. So no, that would not be a good change
> of terminology.
Also De
Ben Finney writes:
> Russ Allbery writes:
>> And in the process, PLEASE rename Debian Maintainer to something that
>> isn't completely confusing given the existence of a Maintainer field
>> in all of our packages
> Isn't the very point of the Debian Maintainer role that it more
> precisely does
On 07/05/2010 11:12 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Christoph Berg writes:
>> Re: Steve Langasek 2010-07-05 <20100705164805.ga26...@dario.dodds.net>
>
>>> I haven't seen anyone propose a good name that it can be changed *to*.
>>> Shouldn't that be the first step?
>
>> It would probably be "New Develo
Bernd Zeimetz writes:
> On 07/06/2010 12:04 AM, Ben Finney wrote:
> > As a Debian Maintainer, a significant power I *don't* have is that
> > of uploading (arbitrary) packages. So no, that would not be a good
> > change of terminology.
>
> Also Debian Developers are able to upload stuff, therefore
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > Russ Allbery writes:
>
> >> And in the process, PLEASE rename Debian Maintainer to something
> >> that isn't completely confusing given the existence of a Maintainer
> >> field in all of our packages
>
> > Isn't the very point of the Debian Maintain
Ben Finney writes:
> So:
> * Package Maintainer can be anyone
> * Debian Maintainer can do anything the above can do, but is also a
> member of the Debian project (i.e. “a Package Maintainer within the
> Debian project”)
That would be a fine set of terminology if we had a role like that, b
On 05/07/10 20:25, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> >> and not all Debian Maintainers are maintainers
>> > That last one is new to me. What's the point of becoming a Debian
>> > Maintainer if not to maintain one or more packages in Debian?
> So that they can upload a Debian package. They may have no intent
Felipe Sateler writes:
> On 05/07/10 20:25, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> So that they can upload a Debian package. They may have no intention
>> to become the maintainer. I see a real layer of additional distinction
>> from people who upload packages to people who are maintainers. The
>> latter is a
On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 07:21:08PM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Zack, are you going to coordinate this with your DPL hat? If there's
> need for some "dumb" manpower, I'd be happy to help.
Nope, not really: as you observe I think the NM frontdesk, and maybe
more generally the NM committee (hey,
Russ Allbery writes:
> Ben Finney writes:
> > It seems to me that the Debian Maintainer role is clearly focussed
> > on granting the minimum needed to be a maintainer within the Debian
> > project, as opposed to a maintainer not within the Debian project.
> > So I don't see your case for wanting
26 matches
Mail list logo
