On Mon, 2008-02-11 at 08:37 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> writes: > > > Just a note for everyone - I will now ignore any RFS that does not > > include the long description for the package. > > > > It doesn't matter how many times you "ping", without a long > > description posted to *this* list, I will no longer waste time > > either asking for one or reviewing your package and your RFS is > > likely to be deleted without any further action. > > A good policy except that I'd recommend you respond to at least some > of them to say *why* you think they're worth ignoring. The debian-mentors FAQ does recommend more than the bare bones of the RFS already. My sponsoring requirements are also linked from the debian-mentors pages. I have been responding to at least some of these inadequate RFS emails in the past. I do not have the time to continue. I feel it is more appropriate to simply ignore badly formed RFS emails en masse. > Many people > posting to this list cannot be expected to know your policy since > they're here for the first time. I can and do expect that people using debian-mentors for the first time follow the advice on the debian-mentors FAQ. The FAQ specifies that the template is insufficient, yet I continue to see RFS emails that are no better than the template. Mentors has, IMHO, again become a dumping ground for inadequate packages from lazy "maintainers", wasting sponsoring/reviewing time on packages that are poorly prepared, sometimes not even lintian clean and where "maintainers" do not appear to care about preparing an RFS beyond "filling in some gaps in a template". I am glad to work with those maintainers who stand out from such a dire crowd and I will continue to do so. Those who take some time over the preparation of packages and show some level of effort in at least applying the principles of the FAQ deserve my support and as I have limited time, I therefore choose to prioritise my support to those who take the time to do the work. Those who cannot be bothered to follow a link and who appear to be able to little more than "join the dots" do not deserve my time. Sorry. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part