On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 03:02:52PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Friday 17 July 2009, Mark Brown wrote:
> > achievable or useful goal and it does lock out people like translators > > (though that's more of a theoretical concern than a practical one). > That last is simply not true. If someone wants to enter the project as > translator or documentation writer or whatever, the AM has the option of > simply skipping any parts of the NM process that are not relevant for > that task and adding other T&S tasks that test skills relevant to that > role. I know that was the original theory. However, if we're asking packagers a big list of questions which attempt to cover every possible aspect of development it seems at best uneven to skip that for non-packagers. Clearly the T&S questions aren't going to be terribly appropriate for someone working on non-packaging tasks but one could equally make the argument that if someone's working on packaging particular kinds of package then those T&S questions that cover other areas of packaging aren't relevant to them. That said... > For example, during my NM process I was never asked to do any of the T&S > parts dealing with e.g. library packaging because it was understood that > I was just not interested in doing that. > My AM, FD and DAM had faith that I would not attempt things outside my > area of interest and skills, so I was accepted into the project without > being able to package a library. ...it seems that an approach which does skip some of the templates is being accepted, which is good. I'm guessing that some of the AMs might not have realised this, at least in the past - I know when I saw people saying to use the templates I didn't get the impression that this was the idea, especially given the coverage goal. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
