On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 06:28:17PM +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote: > On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 03:22:35PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote: > > > I don't think this is necessary or helpful: most RFSes are sponsored > > > because they are in a good shape and somebody decided to sponsor them, not > > > because a sponsor is actually interested in that software. > > > https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/ makes sense to me: you either find a > > > relevant team or wait until people that sponsor random packages sponsor > > > yours. Knowing what does the package actually do is mostly useful to skip > > > ones that don't deserve sponsoring. > > > > Andrey, when was the last time you requested sponsorship on a package with > > an identity that's not yet well established in the project? Perhaps you > > should try it next time you want to have something in Debian and see what > > happens. > > Sorry? I know that we have a problem with not having enough sponsors and > that many RFSes, especially for new packages, are open for months, I'm > just saying that providing more info about a package won't help solve it.
Sponsors are more likeley to pick up a package if it's personally interesting to them, that's just human nature. Making the ITP/RFS more appealing doesn't really fix the root cause, no, but many of us work on Debian because it's intrinically interesting, no? So why shouldn't new contributors try to maximize the appeal of their work to motivate us DDs to look at it? More motivation for sponsors -> fewer sponsors needed overall :) --Daniel
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
