On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:04:39PM +0200, Mattia Rizzolo wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:35:59PM +0200, Mathieu Mirmont wrote: > > Hey, thanks for looking into my application. I wasn't too sure what to > > apply for TBH, I wasn't sure is DM was a typical step before DD or the > > statement of a different intention. One of my sponsors suggested that > > I apply for DD. > > > > My prime motivation to apply for DD/DM is to not have to bother people > > to upload new versions of the packages that I maintain. DM would be > > totally fine. > > Well, if you have DDs that would advocate your DDs, we can totally do > this, but indeed from your words it sounds a weak motivation, and I'd > recommend to re-apply as DM. However it would be great to hear from > your potential advocates first :) - please point them to this thread. My intention is to apply for DD eventually, and if the regular process is indeed to apply for DM first then I don't see any reason why I should be skipping the line. I'll re-apply for DM. > > > Furthermore, I notice that your GPG key has no signatures: remember that > > > you'll need 2 for DD, but only one for DM (signatures or endorsements). > > > > Yes I will ask my sponsors if they would consider signing my key. It > > is a bit difficult with the ongoing pandemic to meet and sign keys in > > person. I have been signing all my emails and my packages with this > > key so there is some history recorded within Debian, I am hoping that > > this can be a sufficient proof for the time being. Do you maybe have > > suggestions? > > I haven't looked at your key, but if it's old enough, and you used it > enough to establish some kind of consistency, that should be enough for > somebody you interacted with to endorse the key. Cool, I'll send some emails then. Cheers, -- Mathieu Mirmont <mat@parad0x.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature