Re: Self-assessment of the quality of the maintenance work
Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Agreed. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this.
> Maybe the form should make it easy to give the same answers to all
> packages that are maintained by a given team ? We could use easily
> identify the team by finding out an email that matches .*@lists\. in
> either the Maintainer: field or the Uploaders: field.
That would do it for me. That's a good idea. I think if I could set a
default answer for all packages in a given team and then go back and tweak
the ones that are special for some reason, it would make that case
I'm not sure that lack of response should be taken as a definitive
indication of anything, but I'm not sure that it would need to be to still
gather useful information from this sort of thing.
I'd be happy to fill out such a survey every six months or so, and I'd be
curious to see the results.
Maybe, similar to low-threshold-NMU, it would work best if it started as
an opt-in system?
Russ Allbery (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>