Re: RFC: Merging sponsoring system with wnpp
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On Fri, Mar 07, 2003 at 10:03:14PM +0100, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> > Joe Nahmias wrote:
> > > What if we add a new type to the wnpp package 'RFS' = Ready/Request
> > > For Sponsorship?
> > > Comments?
> >
> > AFAIK, the set of RFS is not a subset of previous ITP. They also
> > include ITA
>
> in this case, the ITA could be retitled to RFS.
Quite so.
> > and possibly RF-yet-another-S for packages already in the archive in
> > case a previous sponsor lacks time or similar.
>
> you could file a new RFS bug in this case, or just ask on -mentors, as
> the consensus decides.
I would go with filing another bug to <alert type="buzzword"> leverage
</alert> the existing Debian infrastructure (ie. WNPP, BTS, etc...).
> > Also, your assuming that DDs intending to package are willing to sponsor.
> yes, he is. but it seems that the system would work either way.
Well, if you would really like to know my assumptions, they are:
a) checking someone else's package is less work than packaging something
from scratch (I know that this isn't always the case, but I think it's
valid to a first approximation).
b) DDs are interested in seeing new packages added to Debian in the
quickest manner possible (ie. developers are lazy, and would rather
re-use someone else's packaging effort instead of re-inventing the
wheel).
My main goals for this proposal are to:
(a) expand the pool of available sponsors with a wider call for
sponsors[0]
(b) assist non-DDs in finding sponsors using the infrastructure Debian
already has in place.
Also, as a side effect, this would move most of the RFS traffic off of
- -mentors, leaving the list for ppl who want help with creating packages.
Anyone else have anything to say? Should I cc -policy and let them
debate it?
Joe Nahmias, DD wannabe, who thinks his AM is really named Godot... :-)
[0] For example: A random DD -- not subscribed to -mentors, but
subscribed to -devel-announce, reads the wnpp email, and sees a package
that has an RFS and looks somewhat interesting...even if they wouldn't
necessarily want to put in the effort to package it from scratch, they
might want to expend the [lesser] effort of checking another's package
and uploading it...).
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+a2jFKl23+OYWEqURAuouAJ99yI8GifHRMGUUY4PsQ6W8qsA+QACdEEuU
xNHEerKLQiHGz0ywTAfeWW8=
=ffEt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: