Re: Reforming the NM process
On 12 Apr 2006, Marc Brockschmidt verbalised:
> Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On 11 Apr 2006, Marc Brockschmidt told this:
>>> "Bernhard R. Link" <email@example.com> writes:
>>>> Plus sponsoring is a nice way to have experienced people look at
>>>> what a applicant is doing. If done seriously sponsoring is almost
>>>> as much work as packaging a package on your own,
>>> But only very few people take sponsoring seriously, despite some
>>> efforts to change this. Your whole point becomes moot as soon as
>>> you move away From the precondition that sponsors *really* check
>>> packages. That I find release-critical bugs in my applicants'
>>> packages (which happens quite often) shows how "good" sponsoring
>> Could you report such sponsors, so we may take their
>> sponsorship privileges away?
> Uh. At the moment, the rule of thumb is that sponsored packages
> should be handled and checked like one's own packages. Release
> critical bugs sometimes happen and we still don't revoke upload
> If we introduce a more fine-grained system that allows us to limit
> upload permissions, we can talk about restricting sponsorship
> privileges. I'd prefer to not discuss these matters on public
> mailing lists, especially not in this thread.
Frankly, if someone takes the trust the project places in them
to upload packages so lightly as to not check the software they are
uploading, they should lose upload privileges until we can trust
their judgement again.
A budget is just a method of worrying before you spend money, as well
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C