On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 03:24, Marc Haber wrote: > On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 00:22:16 +0100, Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> > wrote: > >* David Palmer. (david@weavers-web.org) [040105 00:10]: > >> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 22:42:27 +0100 > >> Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> wrote: > >> > * Martin Michlmayr (tbm@cyrius.com) [040104 21:25]: > >> > > We also have to think of > >> > > better defining and controlling what should enter the archive. > > > >> > Definitly. > > > >> What would the minimum competency requirement and qualifications > >> required to become a maintainer? > > > >Well, this was not about "required to become a maintainer", but "what > >qualifies a package that it should enter the debian archive". At the > >moment, there is just one written criteria, and that is "DFSG-free" > > And it has happened more than once that a new package was rejected by > the ftpmaster after a lot of work was invested into the package. This > is bad, and waste of resources. > > There should be an interface to get ftpmaster pre-approval before more > work is done on a package. At least as I understand it, this is one of the points of Cc-ing the ITP to debian-devel. However, I know this can often get lost in the huge amount of traffic. Maybe a debian-itp with just the ITPs themselves is a good idea? Any discussion can then take place on -devel, or in private emails to the ITPer. -- Joe Wreschnig <piman@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part