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

Re: Why is it so hard to get sponsors.....?

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 11:07:11PM +0000, Philip Ashmore wrote:
> On 26/02/13 21:51, Arno Töll wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On 26.02.2013 22:31, W. van den Akker wrote:
> >>I understand [1] and [2]. I meant uploading to unstable and not testing.
> >>But none of the DD was ever answering the emails......
> >
> >Be patient and don't give up. I know this can be frustrating and
> >annoying, and we're slowly trying to improve the situation, but we all
> >agree the situation is still all but optimal to sponsorees.
> >
> >
> >Moreover, personally I'm always keen to hear about ideas how to improve
> >the situation though. So let us know if you got good ideas.
> While harsh reality dictates that sponsors will spend their time
> however they wish, including only sponsoring packages that interest
> them or have some other relevance,


> it might be more encouraging if
> sponsorees could know where they stand apart from the "wall of
> silence" we have now.

Also true.

> First - a weighted sponsorship priority queue - all packages get a
> rating and higher-rated packages will get sponsored sooner than
> others.

Priorities are different per sponsor.  There's no overall priority.

Also, setting priorities and publishing them, costs time, in my opinion better
spent on sponsoring the packages.

> Everyone who wants a sponsor for a package will see their package,
> its position in the queue, and its weighting. "Your call is
> important to us - you are 15th in the queue" is better than "please
> hold".

I agree that this would be nice for who waits for a sponsor.

> Second - a weighting web interface - even if a sponsor can't/wont
> sponsor a package they can rate it positively or negatively. This
> would take seconds with the right web interface, comments optional.

Now that is a good idea.  Voting up or down with one click costs little time.

> Third, unless a package reaches some negative weighting value which
> marks it as un-sponsor-able, it will eventually get packaged.

No promises that a package will get sponsored.  The ranking reflects the voting
up or down, but it doesn't mean that the top package will be sponsored first.
Sponsoring still depends on the individual sponsor deciding that the package is
good for upload.

> This way, sponsors get to package what they like most of the time,
> with the occasional package they might prefer not to, for Debians
> sake.

If the individual sponsors want to do this.  It's still volunteering work.


Bart Martens

Reply to: