I would go even 1 step further and seek from a perspective maintainer, especially a non-DD/DM, at least some assurance that it is not a fire-and-forget project for him (e.g. that he is using it extensively and planing to do so for the next X years) and that he is willing to put effort in proper maintenance of the package. ITP -> 1 upload -> X NMUs -> O is not that uncommon. IMHO if there is a strong personal motivation (i.e. active user) to get a package packaged, it might provide additional weight toward "accepting" the package to be part of Debian even if comparable alternatives exist.
I wonder if we shouldn't seek extending an /usr/share/pyshared/reportbug/debbugs.py:521:itp_template = textwrap.dedent(u"""\ with some advocation/motivation fields to make our discussion (upon reaching the consensus if such could be reached) any fruitful ? On Fri, 29 Jun 2012, Roger Leigh wrote: > > > It's part of the job of a (prospective) package maintainer to advocate > > > for the package. > > what??? > I don't see anything unreasonable about being able to articulate the > reasons why a package should be part of Debian. I don't mean having > to suffer a drawn out argument, but just being able to give the > reasons why it's important for the software to be in Debian, what > it does, and why it's sufficiently different from what we already > have. -- Yaroslav O. Halchenko Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences Dartmouth College, 419 Moore Hall, Hinman Box 6207, Hanover, NH 03755 Phone: +1 (603) 646-9834 Fax: +1 (603) 646-1419 WWW: http://www.linkedin.com/in/yarik -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120629161849.go5...@onerussian.com
