Re: Reforming the NM process
On Saturday 15 April 2006 17:48, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
--cut--
> > We'll never tell that! We just tell "we trust you to maintain <x>
> > according to our standards but since you didn't went (yet) through
> > full NM, we don't trust you on working on anything you'd want".
>
> Err, I am not sure we do say that. Seems to me that the fact
> the packages need be checked by a sponsor means we say we are not
> quite sure you can package things to our standards yet, but we
> applaud that you are trying to learn, so here is an experienced
> person to help to reach that level of skill.
>
> manoj
> not sure if this discussion is going anywhere
Hm, seems to me that this leads to the following:
If a DD wants to advocate a person for the NM process, then he (or other
fellow DD) should be personally convinced of this person's capabilities for
maintaining a package (dealing with bug reports against that package, etc) by
sponsoring (why not also mentoring) his works for a while. Then if the
sponsor is convinced enough, he can advocate for that person and even be his
AM checking only these steps on NM process which are not passed during the
sponsorship period. This should speed the thing and filter out almost doomed
NM apprications.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Reply to: