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

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Britton wrote:
> >     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?
> 
> Well DWN definately implied it was a requirement, that's how I remember
> the discussion going when the idea got implemented, and NMs seem to be
> understanding it as a requirement, though apparently mayby it isn't.

Hmm, since I wrote that paragraph, I'd like to object and clarify:

This is what we wrote for DWN:

   Sponsors Needed. Raphaël Hertzog [8]reminded us that Debian needs
   more sponsors to look after packages from prospective future
   maintainers. The sponsorship system offers official Debian
   developers help future maintainers by checking their packages,
   giving them advice, and uploading their packages into Debian before
   they have finished the new-maintainer process. Currently, there are
   about 30 people [9]looking for a sponsor.

Please re-read this sentence: "The sponsorship system offers official
   Debian developers help future maintainers by checking their packages,
   giving them advice, and uploading their packages into Debian before
   they have finished the new-maintainer process."

This is the only possibility to get your packages added to the Debian
archive before you finished the NM process.  You don't have to go this
way.  You can still wait until you passed the NM process.  However,
chances are good that sponsoring shortens the period of time you need
to pass it, and non-sponsoring adds good chances that a new maintainer
uploads buggy packages resulting in too little clue.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
A mathematician is a machine for converting coffee into theorems.

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.