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

Re: Use of the BTS for managing sponsorship

On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 13:59, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> You don't know if the current system works well enough (neither do I).
> Do you know if all sponsoree find a sponsor ?
They don't. 
I recently though about packaging a program called metacity-setup. There
was an open RFP, so I thought no developers were working on it. After a
little digging, I found that someone had created packages in July, but
nobody responded to his sponsor requests so he just left Debian devel on
hold. (He will soon request a sponsor again, as soon as he updates the
packages for a new release)

> BTW, using the BTS wouldn't change much, we'd still exchange mails in
> debian-mentors ...
I vote for the BTS too. 
I think this may also put more discussion into debian-mentors that would
otherwise have been done privately between NM and sponsor. Reading
through these would be useful for prospective packagers - it may even
reduce the workload of developers. 

One point I must make is that whatever system is chosen, it must be made
absolutely clear what the NM should do. Currently, it is too hard to
decide whether to mail the list or use the cgi, especially for new
developers who are learning lots of new things at that time. 

One advantage of a cgi approach is that you could have a page telling
the users what they should do before requesting a sponsor (e.g. read
docs, check package) and also have entries for all the required info
(maintainer name, url, description, package url, nm status). This would
then be a simpler system for the nm. 
This could of course also be done within reportbug.


| Mark Howard               cam.ac.uk   mh344@ |
| http://www.tildemh.com    tildemh.com    mh@ |

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: