Re: Reforming the NM process
* Raphael Hertzog <firstname.lastname@example.org> [060414 18:46]:
> 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.
This is quite a relatively good situation. They can do the perl/tex
specific stuff and the sponsor has the experience for more important
stuff. (I'd personally not sponsor, as I only sponsor if the sponsored
person at least plans to enter NM in the future, but if someone is
willing to keep people from the
> > 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).
Looking at cvs.alioth.d.o/cvs/nm-templates I find not many things not
applicable to a tex or perl package. Only the linker stuff might be
a bit out of the way, but in those templates that are four questions
(well one question, but it consists out of four parts) opposed to many
questions that are all applicable for a tex or perl package.
With exception of this one question is there any other question someone
able to directly upload and if it only is one specific package should
not need to be able to a answer?
> And yes people who are volunteering to "simply maintain one package" are
> contributors that we shouldn't reject.
I'm not suggest to reject them. Unless "simly" means "without having to
go through NM".
Bernhard R. Link
mozilla-thunderbird: It cannot read mail, it cannot send mail. It is the
victory of dialup over the internet.