Re: Advocate check-list

[Brian Nelson <pyro@debian.org>]

Joerg Jaspert <joerg@debian.org> writes:

> On 10137 March 1977, Martin Michlmayr wrote:
>
>> wanted to do this for months but never got around to it, so I asked
>> Joerg today if he can prepare something.  However, I feel it might be
>> good to do some brainstorming first so we can come up with a list of
>> things to put into this check-list.
>
> So for the first thoughts, more to follow:
> - Applicant needs to already have some work done for Debian.
>   A packager at least one package, a translator continues work on
>   translating $stuff in Debian, etc.
> - Applicant needs at least a basic knowledge how things work. The more
>   the better. He should have read policy at least once IMO. devel-ref
>   too.
> - If he is a packager he should have shown good work with his packages
>   and bugs. Means - no open bugs without any comment for a long
>   timeframe.

Also, I think an advocate should know the applicant fairly well in terms
of personality/work ethic/etc.  In other words, the advocate should have
worked with the applicant in the past and have a good feel for how the
applicant works with others.  Also knowing the applicant in person is a
very good thing, but should not be a requirement.

For example, Khalid Aziz's report included an advocate who knew and
worked with him personal and an additional comment provided a sponsor
who was also a co-worker.  Even though Khalid hadn't done too much work
for Debian, I thought the comments really improved the overall report
and made it very easy to approve him.  When a well-respected developer
says something like, "I know this applicant very well personally and
he's a great person and worker," it really provides an insight that is
otherwise absent in the report.

-- 
For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!