On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 04:37:18AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote: > > > 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.) > > > > Morning Tobias, > > I have experienced such cases, but usually get people to file an RFS > eventually. This takes time that I would prefer to be using for other things. > > I understand the documentation as you do, but needed wisdom to now know to be > able to advocate to mentors submitters that filing an RFS and add also the > fact that it is also likely to be looked at quicker.
I don't see how is this related to *requiring* anything. There are, or at least were, basically two ways to get a sponsor if you need one: file an RFS and wait for someone to look at the RFS list or ping people/teams directly. You need to file an RFS for the former, you don't need it for the latter. In both cases it's clear in advance whether you need to file an RFS. I expect some people to be, let's say, uninformed enough to upload something to mentors, not read the docs provided on mentors and still expect to be sponsored but social problems shouldn't be solved by technical means. > No RFS because of having a sponsor. These can languish on mentors with no > ongoing information being present or added. Could an RFS also be required for > this case for clarity and we then know the supposed sponsor is aware, taken > ownership and marked as pending on bts? This sounds alien to me, but if you are going to change the meaning of an RFS then I don't have an opinion. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
