Re: Sponsorship guidelines
On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 12:35:19PM +0000, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
> Matthew Palmer (email@example.com) wrote:
> Two quick things on the checklist:
> - Maybe do add a quirk that the prospective packager should (or even say must)
> have read the canonical docs (policy, d.'s r., newmaint) and that the checklist
> not a subsitute. Every now and then I do get the impression that some
> (fortunately not many) sponsor-seekers didn't (e.g. when they didn't package
> the source...).
> You could argue that this is implied, but there's bound to be the ones that do
> the "why, if there's a checklist, I don't have to go through all the policy
Added. Having just rejected a potential sponsee for this very thing, I
guess I should have added it sooner. <g>
> - For descriptions, there also is , which seems to be pretty canonical.
Added, with thanks.