Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 07:53:52PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2002 at 09:12:34AM +0100, Joerg Wendland wrote:
> > I think this is the problem we have with sponsorship. We limit judgement
> > over prospective developers to their package they want to have sponsored.
> > If such a developer has a package that nobody wants, he is not considered.
> An NM should be able to quickly figure out that if he has a package that
> nobody wants, he will /not/ find a sponsor.
An NM who joins because none of the existing developers are interested in
the piece of software he and his workmakes *crucially* need won't find
a sponsor easily by that argument either. Although, in such a case,
the NM's AM probably ought to act as a sponsor (and sponsors should
definitely be asking things like `Why package this piece of software,
when we already have that piece of software which does essentially the
same thing?'), which removes the problem.
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
The daffodils are coming. Are you?
linux.conf.au, February 2002, Brisbane, Australia
--- http://linux.conf.au/
Reply to: