Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea

To: Britton <fsblk@aurora.uaf.edu>
Cc: <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
Subject: Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>
Date: 17 Jan 2002 11:06:52 -0500
Message-id: <[🔎] tslita1ynab.fsf@loggerhead.mekinok.com>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] Pine.OSF.4.33.0201161421220.15053-100000@aurora.uaf.edu>
References: <[🔎] Pine.OSF.4.33.0201161421220.15053-100000@aurora.uaf.edu>

>>>>> "Britton" == Britton  <fsblk@aurora.uaf.edu> writes:

    Britton> I just read in DWN that there are now 30 people waiting
    Britton> for sponsors.  So now we are, essentially, turning away
    Britton> volunteers.

Since when have NMs been required to be sponsored?

Reply to:

Follow-Ups:
- Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
  - From: Britton <fsblk@aurora.uaf.edu>
- Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
  - From: wpmills@Mills-USA.com (W. Paul Mills)

References:
- another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
  - From: Britton <fsblk@aurora.uaf.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent
Next by Date: Re: [kde] setting an /opt precedent
Previous by thread: Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
Next by thread: Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread