Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 02:44:12PM -0900, Britton wrote:
>
> I just read in DWN that there are now 30 people waiting for sponsors.
> So now we are, essentially, turning away volunteers.
[snip]
> Sponsorship doesn't buy any more trust in developers than the old signing
> scheme. I don't see what use it is. If a new maintainer's packages are
> broken and useless, just cheerfully dump them, they are only in unstable.
I will have to agree to that, _but_ I still believe that a package should be
sponsored even if the sponsor doesn't exactly know the inside workings of the
package... To have this, IMHO, the volunteer should at least have a Debian
developer sign his/her key b/f any "speed up" is done... Just to have
a bit more security.. even in unstable...
- Adam
Reply to: