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

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



On Mon, Jul 21, 2003 at 12:22:35PM -0400, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 12:16:45PM -0600, Joel Baker wrote:
> 
> > I didn't say that it was unreasonable to expect an NM to go through the
> > inconvenience of sponsorship, especially to demonstrate that they had
> > their stuff down and knew what they were doing, technically. I said it
> > was unreasonable to put a speedbump in the road, *and expect people to
> > go full speed*.
> 
> Where did this "full speed" expectation come from?  Yes, it slows down the
> process a bit, but in general this is not a big problem.

It comes from the people who believe that having to go through a sponsor is
not a problem, and that people can and should adopt half a dozen packages
without needing to be a DD - an assertion that is rarely stated, but is the
most obvious (to me) explanation for some of the statements made in this
thread. Not necessarily made, however, by you.

> > Anyone claiming it's not inconvenient should spend half a year or so doing
> > it, then try to make the claim with a straight face.
> 
> I did, and for longer than you.

Let me clarify, then: are you claiming that it is not inconvenient, and
that it is reasonable to expect someone to do everything a DD does,
regularly, but through the sponsorship program?

If so... an interesting datapoint. If not, what *are* you saying, and/or
why is it relevant how long you waited (since the statement I made, above,
was intended to directly tie 'inconvenience' to the duration of that
inconvenience).
-- 
Joel Baker <fenton@debian.org>

Attachment: pgpjel39n69iG.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: