Re: sponsor rules
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 01:13, Robert van der Meulen wrote:
> This sponsorship thing has been bothering me for a while now.
> A sponsor is fully responsible for the sponsored packages, and for the work
> the actual maintainer does on the sponsored packages.
> A sponsor shouldn't recieve 'credit' for a sponsored package.
If someone has the sense to refuse to sponsor people who are not capable of
developing packages and to sponsor people who do create good packages, and
they check the packages for the inevitable errors which are part of the
learning process and educate the sponsored person without uploading a bad
package then surely they deserve credit for this!
> Should a sponsor be 'bothered' by bugreports on a package he doesn't
> maintain in reality ?
That depends on the situation. I can imagine situations where the sponsor is
incapable of fixing bugs, for example concerning packages that are hardware
dependant. For example I believe that I could check a package for lego
controlling software for being a correctly behaving Debian package, but not
owning any lego I would be unable to test it or fix any non-obvious bugs.
On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 03:26, Jürgen A. Erhard wrote:
> And... if we made "sponsoring" a priviledge... then some people would
> still sponsor (or even start!), but won't tell anyone. Would that be
> better than what we have now?
What exactly do you mean? Are you referring to a sponsor putting their own
name as the maintainer?
If so that's quite common already in many situations. One example is where
upstream developers maintain the Debian tree.
What's the problem with this anyway? If someone puts their own name to
someone else's work then they are fully responsible for it and should do
whatever is necessary to make sure it's of suitable quality.
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/projects.html Projects I am working on
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page