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

Re: delays in newmaint process



John Leuner wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-08-17 at 16:52, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>>* John Leuner <jewel@pixie.co.za> [2004-08-17 12:21]:
>>>If it's normal practice to hand over a package to someone else who isn't
>>>a DD by sponsoring their uploads, we can go ahead and it this way.
>>This is normal procedure, yeah.  That way, prospective developers can
>>show that they know what they're doing and this in turn makes the NM
>>process quicker.
> In this case it is already well established that Michael knows what he's
> doing, but the NM process hasn't gone any faster.

So what? After a while (I've been sponsored for a year before I even
applied and now, now it's 1.5 years) the inconvenience is so small you
hardly notice. And I'll certainly prefer people spending their time
seeing to the release of sarge over getting my application processed
quicker. And I guess the tradeoff is even better for all those users
that aren't applicants.

In my book, the NM corner should explicitely ask prospective applicants
to do (maintaining via sponsor, comaintaining, QA, whatever) stuff for
at least 1/2 to 1 year before even applying and then tell applicants
that they should expect another 1/2 to 1 year until they're accepted.
At some point of time, I looked at stuff and was really surprised how
many people get a "doesn't have a package in the archive" after they
pass AM processing. Contributions to Debian in package maintenance are
more or less only useful if they're long term, so if people spend 2
years maintaining stuff before they join, that's a whole lot better than
joining after 2 months being a case for MIA tracking after 2 years.

BTW: The length of the duration of Debian's application process isn't
the only exceptional thing about it: The low rate of rejections
certainly is extraordinary as well.

Kind regards

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Viehmann, <http://thomas.viehmann.net/>

Attachment: pgpQXJyiUO8UB.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: