Susan G. Kleinmann wrote:
If there are no rules for sponsorship, and no consequences for sponsoringblatantly buggy packages, then I guess each user simply has to develop his own experience database wrt maintainers whose packages can be trusted [1]. But it's hard to imagine having the time, when deciding whether or not toinstall a package, not just to study its Description, but also to check the background of its developer.This whole experience seemed like an awfully big hole in the debian packaging/archiving policies; if I missed something, I'd very much appreciate being corrected.Susan Kleinmann
Sponsorship only came about when the new maintainer proccess was stopped.I like to hope that sponsorship was only a solution to a short term problem and doesnt belong anymore.
If someone "on the outside" does want to maintain a package longterm and they demonstrate that they are capable of doing it then they should be accepted as a debian member.
If someone "on the outside" doesnt want to maintain a package longterm then they make an unofficial package which can be picked up and maintained by an official debian packager.
Of course its a very subjective thing to judge the abilities of someone else, creating an unofficial package can demonstrate a potential NM's abilities.
The only benfit of the sponsorship program that i see is that it tests that the new maintainer can maintain the package long term.
The new maintainer process has been subject to much change in the last year or so, things look to be under control now though.
I hope all those souls who do the work of debian maintainer but get non of the credit can get themselves out of it speedily.
Glenn