Re: Reforming the NM process
On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Bernhard R. Link wrote:
> > Saying we want more people doing general QA work will not create those
> > people. Refusing help on specific package because some people do not want
> > to go through NM to maintain a very limited package is dumb:
> I think it is dump to make people responsible for stuff who do not
> even show enough comittment to go throught NM.
We already have that situation. Some people are maintaining packages via
sponsors and are not in the NM queue because they find this process
overkill and uselessly complex.
> Again my question: Is there anything in NM that a applicant has to
> show that is not needed to make sure he can be trusted to package
> that packages?
Plenty. It is generally accepted that the various questions from T&S are
tedious and overexagerated compared to what one needs to know to maintain
a perl module or a tex extension (in particular if the applicant is a perl
developer or a tex expert).
And yes people who are volunteering to "simply maintain one package" are
contributors that we shouldn't reject.
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :