  Re: Debian Maintainers GR Proposal  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  1/ I know people who want to maintain
package but don't want to be DD.   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:  If you want to improve the NM proc