On Thu, 2003-12-11 at 12:41, Julian Gilbey wrote: > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 02:45:09PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > > We've often downplayed asking for help in favour of encouraging people > > to *offer* to help, but since we're having problems, it's important to > > try everything we can to overcome them. One of the more effective way > > of getting useful help (as opposed to someone who says they'll help, > > then does absolutely nothing), is to find some specific areas (or tasks) > > that could use help, and then be specific in your request. There are > > plenty of ways to do this, but at the moment, I think the best way is to > > file a RFA (which we're redefining as "Request For Assistance" instead > > of just "Request For Adoption") report against wnpp, with some decent > > information as to what assistance do you want (someone to take over the > > package entirely? a co-maintainer? someone to work on some particular > > area? someone to fix some particular bugs? what skills are required?). > > I wonder whether it would be better to have two different labels: RFA > (Request For Adoption) and RFH (Request For Help)? > I can see a few eager-beavers seeing an RFA and uploading a replacement package without even bothering to notice the Maintainer's just asking for someone to fix a particularly fiendish bug on some architecture they haven't got.
I guess what we're really going for intentwise is similar to the recent GNOME Bounties thing. I'm quite tempted to RF{A,H} a couple of the tricky wishlist bugs open on libtool for example. Scott -- Have you ever, ever felt like this? Had strange things happen? Are you going round the twist?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part