[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Work-needing packages report for Jul 11, 2003

On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 11:55:00AM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * "Jamin W. Collins" 
> | I am and have been.  I currently maintain two packages already in the
> | archive (one adopted, one added) via a sponsor.  However, I have several
> | others (Jabber transports and services) that I would like to add
> | (they've been requested repeatedly), but do not wish to burden my
> | current sponsor with them.
> why?

I had the same feeling when I was waiting for dam approval. I waited for
around 9 months for DAM approval.

Having sponsors is nice, but sometimes they are busy or not reachable. I 
was also holding back some packages until I was finally accepted. 
Though it seems I was lucky by finally finding a very responsive 
sponsor. Thanks to all my sponsors, BTW (you know who you are ;-))

> | Additionally, I feel that the current NM process is very broken WRT to
> | the DAM approval stage and that the only way it will be fixed is through
> | someone being very vocal about it. 
> I think you are wrong.

I do not. The applicant should receive _some_ notice about what is going 
on. Or at least get an answer when he asks. I never got a respond from 

> | Do current Debian Developers feel that the process does not need
> | changing? 
> it should probably be a bit more open than it is today, but I really
> don't see the point of getting a bunch more maintainer who will go MIA
> in a few months.

A /bit/ more open?

> And having people whine about NM right now is kinda silly: samosa, aka
> db.d.o is down and until it's up, the DAM can't create any accounts.

There is always _some_ reason... a server burnt down, keyring broken, 
etc. I've heard many excuses. But never from DAM, and often tagged 
with 'I've heard', 'there are rumors that..', bla bla.


 : :' :    Oliver Kurth oku@debian.org
 `. `'           Debian GNU/Linux maintainer - www.debian.org

Attachment: pgp8fv7GtMfyP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: