On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 03:21:11PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > * Jérôme Marant > > | On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 02:00:40PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: > | > | > So, even though you might know stuff about sponsorship, you do not own > | > the term. What I (and it seems a lot of other people) think is that > | > the current system works fine. At least, it works a lot better than > | > having to handle it through the BTS. IMO. > | > | No, from my point of view it is not enough. I have no way to > | keep track of the sponsorship work. > > Then I suggest you scratch your itch without forcing everybody else to > have the same itch as you.
I want something that you don't need. Then, I win. 'Tell me what you need and I'll tell you how not to need it' That's what you are proposing. If you don't need anything, how about tolerating that some people need something? > | I have a recent case of someone who NMU'ed packages of someone > | I do sponsor but I wasn't aware of that. > > Then you hadn't subscribed to the package through the PTS, I think. Of course I did, but NMU requests have never been implied access to the BTS. I want an entry point for contacts with the sponsoree. I don't have any currently. > What I understand buxy wants the BTS for is for making sure people are > able to find a sponsor, and a way to see which sponsorees who don't > have a sponsor. Not do all the sponsor/sponsoree comms through the > BTS. It is a matter of practice. The one Raphaël is proposing would not be annoying at all. -- Jérôme Marant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
