On 00-12-04 Anand Kumria wrote: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2000 at 02:24:29PM +0100, Christian Kurz wrote: > > > documented well at all). And I have them fix it. There are packages > > > > And that should be the part that the sponsor should do. We have the > > concept of sponsorship for new maintainers, so that they have a debian
> No, we do not.
> Sponsorship (may) expedite the application process. Sponsorship
> will, probably, disappearing from the Debian volcabulary once
> the new-maintainer backlog has cleared.
Hm, you would the current handling of sponsoring new maintainer not call
concept? What do you would name it?
> > In my opinion it's not the job of the application manager to fix
> > packages. If a new maintainer has no sponsor, he should first get one
> > assigned, who will guide him and check the packages. After he passed
> > this test, he should be processed by the NMs and not earlier.
> Have you actually read the current application manager checklist or is
> what you would like to happen?
What checklist exactly do you mean?
> > > I know it's all in the manuals, but it's a lot to learn for NMs. Why
> > > don't you write better documentation? e.g. a "check list before
> >
> > Because it's not needed. I know some people in the NM queue personally
> > and I can tell you, that we don't need more documentation, but a bit
> > more sponsoring and willing new maintainers. The people I know in the NM
> Yes we need new maintainers and this thread is about making it
> more cumbersome and difficult to become one. Are you on the side of
> evil (more cumbersomeness) or good (status quo)? You can't be on both.
I thaught it was already clear, that I'm not against having new
maintainers. But I want a stricter task&skill test as currently some AMs
do it.
Ciao
Christian
--
Debian Developer and Quality Assurance Team Member
1024/26CC7853 31E6 A8CA 68FC 284F 7D16 63EC A9E6 67FF 26CC 7853
pgpI2HrVsp7bg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
