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

Re: Sponsorship guidelines

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 11:21:49AM +0100, Gaudenz Steinlin wrote:
> > 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.

If I was thinking about sponsoring a package, but had a sponsee in this
situation, I'd offer to maintain the debian package myself.

My rationale for wanting my sponsees to want to become DDs is twofold -
firstly, it means I don't have an infinitely long sponsorship timeframe
ahead of me, and secondly, someone who doesn't want to become a DD will
possibly not work as much at keeping their Debian-related skills up to date,
so (for instance) the package may become less policy-compliant, or the
package won't use the latest and best packaging conventions.

I, personally, would rather help new *people* into Debian than just new
packages.  That's my reason for sponsoring people - I understand they need
to prove themselves, and should have the "watchful eye" of someone more
experienced helping them along.  Failing that, I'll try and help them.  <g>

> > 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've cut that bit, I don't think it was conveying the right tone.  I've
added bits elsewhere covering this point.

> > 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
> the sponsee.

Good point.  I think I was trying to make that into a frigging contract or
something ("I disclaim everything", etc).  I've added some more clarifying
material in there, do you think that covers it properly, or should I just
rip it out and start again for that point?

> >From the checklist:
> > debian/copyright OK.
> link to Peter Palfraders mail to d-d-a[1]

Done.  Yummy e-mail.

> > 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.

Verbosity++.  The whole checklist is pretty skinny ATM; I'm planning on
fleshing it out as new things come to me.

> > Package description is reasonable.
> link to the section 3.4 of the debian policy and section 6.2 of the
> developer's reference

Check.  Thanks.

- Matt

Reply to: