I'd like to ask if the template could advise/require that certain extra fields are always specified? 1. An ITP usually includes a "Language: C/C++/Python/Perl etc." line, so for requests for sponsors, it would be good to carry this over so that packages that already exist in the archive also carry this information in the RFS. It would help me enormously to be able to scan the RFS and disregard all python or ruby packages and concentrate on C/C++ or Perl without having to research each one via various web pages. 2. I frequently find that the short description of RFS emails is insufficient and I would value the opportunity to scan RFS emails that include the long description. Descriptions are commonly tweaked during the process of sponsorship as it is rare that a new maintainer makes a genuinely understandable short and long description on their first attempt and existing packages can also suffer from poor descriptions. 3. The URL field is commonly just the URL for the mentors.debian.net site (which itself is often little more than the template) when it would be useful to either recommend the upstream homepage or include that separately - naturally, if the long description is included, a lot of packages will include this anyway. (Those that do not include a Homepage link in the long description should expect to be asked to add one.) 4. Some kind of statement in the template that a bare template with minimal information is usually insufficient. Those who may want to ask me to sponsor their packages, please note - if you include this information in the very first RFS email to this list, you have a much higher chance of attracting my interest. In most cases, a bare template RFS will simply be ignored, regardless of the merits of that particular package. Personally, I expect people requesting sponsorship to be enthusiastic about the package to be sponsored. I would expect such enthusiasm to manifest as a tendency to include too much information rather than too little and I am prone to disregarding requests for sponsorship that suffer from a lack of information in the original RFS. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpEE_Ct8LOk5.pgp
Description: PGP signature