Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
- To: Gergely Nagy <algernon@debian.org>
- Cc: debian-newmaint@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: another reason why requiring NMs to be sponsored is a bad idea
- From: Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>
- Date: 17 Jan 2002 11:25:08 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] tsladvdymfv.fsf@loggerhead.mekinok.com>
- In-reply-to: <20020117102615.GA10319@midgard.debian.net>
- References: <Pine.OSF.4.33.0201161421220.15053-100000@aurora.uaf.edu> <873d15desb.fsf@xyzzy.adsl.dk> <20020117093638.GD3086@bluecherry.net> <20020117094150.B17257@doc.ic.ac.uk> <20020117102615.GA10319@midgard.debian.net>
>>>>> "Gergely" == Gergely Nagy <algernon@debian.org> writes:
>> No, we don't. It's normal, but not required. The NM process
>> doesn't even require a person to maintain any packages,
>> although I'm not aware of anybody who passed it in another
>> manner (and I'd be surprised if anybody did).
Gergely> I do, and not only one.
I'd hope that if you and the NM cannot agree on a sponsor you give the
applicant a chance to pick another AM.
Reply to: