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

Re: sponsorship was: task & skills

On 00-12-04 Anand Kumria wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 02:24:29PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote:
> > > documented well at all).  And I have them fix it.  There are packages
> > 
> > And that should be the part that the sponsor should do. We have the
> > concept of sponsorship for new maintainers, so that they have a debian

> No, we do not.

> Sponsorship (may) expedite the application process. Sponsorship
> will, probably, disappearing from the Debian volcabulary once
> the new-maintainer backlog has cleared.

Hm, you would the current handling of sponsoring new maintainer not call
concept? What do you would name it? 

> > In my opinion it's not the job of the application manager to fix
> > packages. If a new maintainer has no sponsor, he should first get one
> > assigned, who will guide him and check the packages. After he passed
> > this test, he should be processed by the NMs and not earlier.

> Have you actually read the current application manager checklist or is
> what you would like to happen?

What checklist exactly do you mean? 

> > > I know it's all in the manuals, but it's a lot to learn for NMs.  Why
> > > don't you write better documentation?  e.g. a "check list before
> > 
> > Because it's not needed. I know some people in the NM queue personally
> > and I can tell you, that we don't need more documentation, but a bit
> > more sponsoring and willing new maintainers. The people I know in the NM

> Yes we need new maintainers and this thread is about making it
> more cumbersome and difficult to become one. Are you on the side of
> evil (more cumbersomeness) or good (status quo)? You can't be on both.

I thaught it was already clear, that I'm not against having new
maintainers. But I want a stricter task&skill test as currently some AMs
do it. 

          Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member
    1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16  63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853

Attachment: pgpL9P64OZXFZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: