Bug#288379: I offer to look after the package for you untill you become a developer, Ian!
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 23-01-2005 16:45, Rene Engelhard wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
>>>>>It looks fundamentally broken. Just sponsor it the normal way.
>>>>
>>>>Did you volunteer? Else please let me do it how I want to (as long as I
>>>>do not break policies or in other ways bring our society in danger).
>
>
> You do. You break the - unwritten iirc - sponsoring policy.
>
> And you will make Ian have a hard time going through NM. In NM we check
> if a prospective maintainer already has packages. If Maintainer: is you,
> he has no package. And no, I won't accept a package which is not
> Maintainer: the NM to be maintained by the NM and I think many other NMs
> won't do it either. Because Maintainer: says it is maintained by you.
> That he "sends patches" (note the "'s) is not enough for the
> having-a-package-in-the-archive criterium. I don't know how the FD
> handles them but he won't get approved so with some AMs I guess...
If "helping out the project the best as he can while waiting for the
process to move on" hurts his case, then off course he shouldn't. And if
that is the case I think I see a reason why your mysterious policy is
not written down... :-P
>>I will not sign packages of non-developers, because (as stated earlier)
>>I do not believe this works. Please, instead of persuading me to use my
>
>
> Why not? Check their changes (interdiff, zless etc.) and then rebuild
> fully and sign it.
My worry is not so much what I sign but the visibility of my signature.
The reason is _not_ fame, but things like ability for the community to
keep track of non-developer maintainers and their sponsors: Can you tell
me which packages are currently maintained by non-developers, and
sponsored by which developers? I don't know how.
Our tools and policies are designed to handle developers in a keyring.
Sponsoring of packages is a hack and I believe that hack has flaws on
the meta level.
What I see as bugs others find convenient - so I won't make a fuzz about
it (like you may have noticed I do with the (ab)use of -private). I
simply choose to not use those routines.
>>signature for something I do not believe in, go ahead and do so yourself!
>
>
> I won't either.
I offered to help Ian my way. You offer nothing, but tell me to do
things you won't do yourself. That makes no sense to me.
Greetings,
- Jonas
- --
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFB8+kPn7DbMsAkQLgRAuSHAJ9zzdCchIImsQDo4c+AjL0uO89J/ACfVpbB
3kHwWmZDQ8ArNmd4HjTBJNw=
=m9sM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: