On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 04:02:54AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote: > Hi all, > > The data now being added, be it on a subject line or via bts control all > require that a submission to mentors file an RFS. We have many that state > they do not require a sponsor or not file an RFS. This makes processing > difficult and time intensive. > > Should we require all submissions to mentors file an RFS? > > Please discuss. :-)
IMHO The existing documentation advocates already on using RFS bugs: https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto/ "In general, sponsorship requests should be handled through the Debian Bug Tracking System." https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/ "You will be shown a RFS (request-for-sponsorship) template that you should send out as a bug report filed against the sponsorship-requests pseudo-package to draw attention to your package." There are corner cases (e.g sponsoree has already a sponsor) where an RFS is not needed, but as the rfs-howto says, generally it should be done as documented, and that is using RFS bugs. Have you experience cases where people do not file RFS bugs but should have? (/me only looking for RFS bugs, so I don't have that data.) -- tobi
