DaNiMoTh wrote:
2008/7/29 Angel Velásquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I agree with Ronald, but i think that we've said enough, i hope this
experience will teach us a lesson, and we worked as a team in that
situation and i feel good with this.
Besides, i don't agree with blame Allan, could happened of any of us,
the important fact is that we (his team) helped him with this
situation,
I don't want to blame Allan; My words was for all, and because this I
have posted here.
This situation could happen to all, you told, and you're right.
For the record, I think I should be blamed. When you sponsor someone,
you are taking responsibility for them, not only by saying they are a
good candidate but also during their initial phase as a TU to help them
get used to the system and not break the community repo. I stuffed up
here and will take the blame. If no-one takes blame, then what is the
point of sponsorship.
As an explaination for my actions (and not wanting to sound defensive),
I think I was too lenient on checking the applicants qualifications
primarily because he was the third person who asked me to sponsor him
that day. The first two I suggested apply later due to being fairly new
to the Arch community despite probably being good candidates. So when I
got a third applicant that had been around for about a year and had good
Linux experience (excluding the Debian developer thing), I decided to
take a risk. As far as checking the Debian developer claim goes, I was
told he maintained ~10 packages in 2001/2002. I couldn't find much
(non-self generated) signal on google but then I didn't really expect
to. Good catch by other TUs to look in changelogs. If anything, I am
happy the discussion period works and thank everybody for being critical
of an applicant, even one who has a sponsor.
Cheers,
Allan
