Re: Sponsorship guidelines
Am Die, den 10.02.2004 schrieb Matthew Palmer um 10:01:
> Discussion can be either on-list or privately, whatever you fancy. I'd also
> appreciate comments from potential sponsees as to whether the notes are
> comprehensible, and whether I've gone power-mad.
I would prefer on-list discussion (off-list only for minor grammar and
In general I think such a document is a very good thing. Thank you Matt
to make life easier for potential sponsees and sponsors. I have a few
suggestions on how it could be improved:
> You must be intending to join the Debian project at some point in the
> future. I see sponsorship as a step to becoming a DD, not an end in
> and of itself. You may not have a specific timeline for applying, but
> if you truly have no interest in ever being a DD, stop now.
I think this is reasonable as a general rule, but I can think of one
case where permanent sponsorship may be acceptable. If one is also the
upstream author of the package he wants to get into debian and is only
interested in maintaining his own software. Then it may be a bit
overkill to become a full DD for this.
> You must accept that I may not be interested in what you're packaging.
> If I have no knowledge or experience in the area of your package, I
> probably won't agree to sponsor you. Sorry.
... and ask someone else to sponsor your package. If you don't find a
sponsor on debian-mentors you can also ask on Debian mailing lists
specific to your package.
> I make no guarantees about how quickly your upload will be made. This
> has been a big problem in the past, and I hope it will never be so bad
> in the future. However, I have a life (well, I claim to, anyway) and
> can't always be right there to upload immediately.
I think this is OK if the package is not yet in the archive. But if you
expect of a sponsee to react to bug reports like a DD should and if they
try provide fixed packages in a timely fashion then they should have the
guarantee that you try to upload the package soon. IMHO sponsoring a
package gives some obligations to the sponsor as it gives obligations to
>From the checklist:
> debian/copyright OK.
link to Peter Palfraders mail to d-d-a
> debian/rules doesn't have any of the usual blecherisms (dh_make cruft
> in particular).
for this to be helpful to potential sponsees it should be a little bit
more verbose about what should be avoided exactly.
> Package description is reasonable.
link to the section 3.4 of the debian policy and section 6.2 of the