Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-09 Thread Jimmy Kaplowitz
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:31:24AM +0300, Shaul Karl wrote: > > Following from all this, I recommend: > > > > 1. Announce that you're willing to adopt package X, but that you'll > >need a sponsor. Don't forget to Cc: the WNPP bug for package X. > > > > 1.5 You might use the sponsorship prog

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-09 Thread Jimmy Kaplowitz
On Mon, Jul 09, 2001 at 04:31:24AM +0300, Shaul Karl wrote: > > Following from all this, I recommend: > > > > 1. Announce that you're willing to adopt package X, but that you'll > >need a sponsor. Don't forget to Cc: the WNPP bug for package X. > > > > 1.5 You might use the sponsorship pro

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-08 Thread Shaul Karl
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > It has been signed conforming to RFC2015. > You'll need PGP or GPG to check the signature. > > =_994626186-1074-2 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > "Greg Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The question is: which do

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-08 Thread Shaul Karl
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format. > It has been signed conforming to RFC2015. > You'll need PGP or GPG to check the signature. > > =_994626186-1074-2 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > "Greg Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > The question is: which d

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-08 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
"Greg Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The question is: which do I do first, announce my intentions to > debian-devel or submit a new main- tainer application? The > application seems to want me to announce. Other docs seem to > indicate that I should become a maintainer first. You can become

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-08 Thread Robert Bihlmeyer
"Greg Wiley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The question is: which do I do first, announce my intentions to > debian-devel or submit a new main- tainer application? The > application seems to want me to announce. Other docs seem to > indicate that I should become a maintainer first. You can becom

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-06 Thread Adam McKenna
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote: > Really? The entry form at the NM corner has this scary warning: [...] > So which is it? I've already created the packages I'm going to maintain, > but I don't have my GPG key signed yet, nor do I have an advocate. > What's the next s

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-06 Thread Adam McKenna
On Fri, Jul 06, 2001 at 04:07:02PM -0400, Neil Conway wrote: > Really? The entry form at the NM corner has this scary warning: [...] > So which is it? I've already created the packages I'm going to maintain, > but I don't have my GPG key signed yet, nor do I have an advocate. > What's the next

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-06 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
On 06-Jul-2001 Neil Conway wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 11:28:50PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: >> New maintainer is more concerned with the fact that you actually have work >> ready when you apply. So if you have a package ready for submission and >> peer >> review, submit an applicatio

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-06 Thread Neil Conway
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 11:28:50PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > New maintainer is more concerned with the fact that you actually have work > ready when you apply. So if you have a package ready for submission and peer > review, submit an application. Really? The entry form at the NM corner

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-06 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
On 06-Jul-2001 Neil Conway wrote: > On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 11:28:50PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: >> New maintainer is more concerned with the fact that you actually have work >> ready when you apply. So if you have a package ready for submission and >> peer >> review, submit an applicati

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-06 Thread Neil Conway
On Thu, Jul 05, 2001 at 11:28:50PM -0700, Sean 'Shaleh' Perry wrote: > New maintainer is more concerned with the fact that you actually have work > ready when you apply. So if you have a package ready for submission and peer > review, submit an application. Really? The entry form at the NM corne

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-06 Thread Viral
> The question is: which do I do first, announce my > intentions to debian-devel or submit a new main- > tainer application? The application seems to want > me to announce. Other docs seem to indicate > that I should become a maintainer first. You announce your intent to package, or adopt the pa

RE: Procedural clarification

2001-07-06 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
> The question is: which do I do first, announce my > intentions to debian-devel or submit a new main- > tainer application? The application seems to want > me to announce. Other docs seem to indicate > that I should become a maintainer first. > either is fine. Do both at the same time (-: Th

Re: Procedural clarification

2001-07-06 Thread Viral
> The question is: which do I do first, announce my > intentions to debian-devel or submit a new main- > tainer application? The application seems to want > me to announce. Other docs seem to indicate > that I should become a maintainer first. You announce your intent to package, or adopt the p

RE: Procedural clarification

2001-07-05 Thread Sean 'Shaleh' Perry
> The question is: which do I do first, announce my > intentions to debian-devel or submit a new main- > tainer application? The application seems to want > me to announce. Other docs seem to indicate > that I should become a maintainer first. > either is fine. Do both at the same time (-: T