On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 15:09:55 -0700 Thanasis Kinias <tkinias@kinias.org> wrote: > > Sounds like a request for sponsorship to me - and one that was lacking > > the most basic information. > > Well, I expect if I were requesting sponsorship I would have entitled > the e-mail `RFS: ...' Not always. > and set the seeking-sponsors flag on the mentors > upload to `yes'. That setting doesn't get as far as the mailing list. I don't go hunting around on mentors.debian.net until *after* the package has peaked my interest and I have sufficient information in the RFS to make a sensible decision about sponsoring the package. > I see now I transposed the `To:' and the `CC:' headers in my original > post: I was e-mailing the maintainer and CCing this list out of > courtesy since I was using the mentors server to hold the files. I can > see how it might have been confusing since I in fact did set `To:' to > this list and `CC:' to the maintainer. OK. > Directness is a popular excuse for rudeness. You go beyond that, > however. Me thinks a 'IMHO' is missing in that sentence. > You wrote: > ] This just isn't good enough - not by a long way. Packages are not > ] removed from unstable without due cause so be OPEN about the cause - > ] this is open source, this is Debian - "we don't hide problems". It wasn't good enough. The onus is on the person requesting sponsorship to provide the information for the sponsor. The sponsor is not there to be a gopher. The bare RFS template is inadequate 95% of the time - it is not a fault of the template, it is a problem with the maintainer not "filling in the gaps" with sufficient detail. This applies to most RFS emails, it's not specific to any one maintainer. > Incidentally, when I pointed out where you were mistaken about the > presence of RC bugs in the package, you simply failed to respond. Would that just possibly be because I tend to be very busy with things elsewhere in Debian? A request for sponsorship needs to invite the sponsor to engage with the maintainer, to be appealing and provide all the information necessary - it is an advertisement, a request, an invitation - not a command, instruction, direction or stipulation. Please take on board that there are other things sponsors are doing and that your requests need to HELP the sponsor, not burden them. You are the one making the requests - you do the work and you must put the information in the RFS email that the sponsor will need. The template is just a guide, it is meant to be embellished. Be verbose, explain things, remember that there are 19,000 packages in Debian and the sponsor has probably never heard of your pet project so explain what it does and what you have done, clearly and fully. No template can cover all the data required for an RFS so *think* and make any request enticing and attractive - not burdensome, tedious or incomplete. I offer sponsorship during what little of my free time is still available to Debian *after* I have done all my priority tasks relating to my own packages. It would be good to hear that such efforts are appreciated and that those requesting sponsorship accept that getting a package sponsored is a partnership, not a right. Those that I have sponsored know me and I know that they appreciate my help. I am not "against" you, I am not out to persecute you - I would like to be able to help but I need the information and a decent explanation of what you have done with a particular package. Don't perpetuate this sub-thread. Whatever you think I meant is not what I intended but I did consider your cinepaint request to be inadequate and your reactions since then have done nothing to change that. Accept the criticism for what it was and move on. Then apply what you have learnt and what I have proposed, in your next RFS. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpPnnxhGBGl0.pgp
Description: PGP signature