On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 09:19, Chris Brannon <cmbran...@cox.net> wrote: > When applying, point out the work that *you* have done. > Mention those packages that you contributed, I.E., those > that aren't adopted. If you put some serious effort into an adopted package, > mention that as well. > What have you done that makes you proud? Tell us about it. > > -- Chris
+1 On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 09:25, Allan McRae <al...@archlinux.org> wrote: > > I am going to be fairly blunt here, but essentially you are wrong.... > > <snip> > > As Jens pointed out, he no longer maintains this. But at this point, that > is moot. He maintained it when he applied and the TUs did not know him very > well in general so we needed to rely on his packaging skill to judge his > application. The consensus opinion of the TUs was obviously that his > package standards were not high enough and I have no doubt that this package > was primarily to blame. > > So, for future reference, here is my subjectiveview of what should have > happened after this package was pointed out as bad: > 1) a reply to aur-general saying "I will look into it". If it was fixable, > good. If not then... > 2) a reply saying, "This is very difficult to fix. I am discussing this > with my sponsor. Any suggestions on how to improve it?". > 3) possibly delaying of voting until it is shown that the issue is fixed. > > I see the ability to know when you have a bad PKGBUILD or other problem and > then asking for help to be far more important than the ability to produce > perfect packages. Remember, once someone is a TU, they will be providing > the community with binary packages. It is essential that the Trusted Users > ensure any new applicant is up to standard. Any doubt is enough to say no. > > Allan > +1