* Matthias Urlichs <email@example.com> [2003-04-15 13:40]: > From: Matthias Urlichs <firstname.lastname@example.org> > To: Gerfried Fuchs <email@example.com>, Matthias Urlichs <firstname.lastname@example.org> Uhm, which mail address, now? And do you like Cc's? I personally tend to read the lists I'm mailing to, so you don't need to Cc: me (my useragent even sets a Mail-Followup-To: header). I'm not sure about you, though. > Gerfried Fuchs wrote: >> As long as people get approved by AMs and produce on sponsored uploads >> through their advocate bugs like #188905 and #188925, I am *glad* that >> the new-maintainer statistics are the way they are. > > The sponsor should check that the package has a reasonable description / > compiles before uploading it. That's not just the NM's fault. Of course not, and that wasn't my reasoning. But if you take all together, like NM not knowing the policy, AMs still claiming they passed both p&p and t&s, and sponsors not checking the packages before uploading neither it shouldn't be no surprise why the DAM-stage of the NM-process is the only one that seems to stand for quality these days, unfortunately. By stating explicitly "That's not just the NM's fault." people usually imply that you say it's someone elses fault, and NMs shouldn't be made responsible. I like to disagree fundamentally here, for _even_ when others seem to have fumbled on some parts the original problem is still the NM. We are no kindergarden where everyone must be taken by hand, we expect from future maintainers that they do what they with a meaning and should be able to take responsibility for it. Otherwise they wouldn't make good maintainers, IMNSHO. > Running pdebuild instead of debuild, to check if the submitted package > builds, doesn't take any more time... Yes. We really would need something different here. I don't take credit for this idea, it came up on IRC and was suggested by Rico "mc" Gloeckner: Split the t&s part into different ones. We already have two parts there, one for documentation and one for package maintenance. We really seem to need one for AMs, sponsors, and a hint database or similar for advocates. It sounds strange? But it is IMHO the only way to get the load off from DAM to tripple check every application because the AM has overseen something. Hell, it is remembered that there even were some AMs already asking for some guides because they felt quite left alone in what they have to do... > I did think about it (and nothing yet changed the opinion I arrived at as a > result of said thinking). > > That's part of the reason why I am going to be a Debian maintainer, y'know? To word it out what I have implied before: This was a general rant, not one against you personally. You mail just was the thing that got me going :) So long, Alfie -- "you learned how to creep and you learned how to crawl but you never really learned anything at all" -- Clawfinger, "Catch Me"
Description: PGP signature