Re: 2 months and no upload for pkg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 05/09/14 20:46, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Daniel Pocock:
>>
>>>> c) offer a paid review service. FTP masters and assistants
>>>> can sell their time through an auction process. [...]
>>>
>>> I hope this is a joke.
>>
>> Not entirely I was not suggesting people would pay to have their
>> packages approved. Only that there would be payment for
>> consideration.
>
> I recall that the last time we went through this sort of argument,
> numerous people have stated quite unequivocally that as soon as
> there is any sort of direct monetary compensation for participating
> in some Debian tasks, they're outta here.
>
> I don't think that has changed, and thus I believe that the net
> amount of work done for Debian is most likely to *de*crease if
> somebody does that kind of thing.
>
> TL;DR: Do Not Go There.
Well, I did give the disclaimer that this was just a list of ideas to
start discussion - it would be really helpful to have other potential
ideas too.
There is already the appearance of commercial activity in derivatives
and it can also undermine motivation for people when they upload
something to Debian and they see it in a commercially funded
derivative distribution before it passes the NEW queue and appears in
Debian itself. In the case of one of my own uploads, this appeared to
be pure co-incidence but I can imagine cases where the packager may
get a bad impression.
One way to deal with this may be to suggest that if something is
accepted by Ubuntu while waiting in NEW and if it passes an automated
scan for binary content and blacklisted license texts, it could be
automatically accepted in Debian.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Icedove - http://www.enigmail.net/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=CPJk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: