Le lundi 15 janvier 2007 10:54, Steffen Moeller a écrit : > I feel obliged to second my pre-posters. This debate should, if required at > all, be depersonalised. In our IT professional/hobbyist lifes we are much > dependent on our skill to perform abstractions, please apply it for this > list, too.
Well, I don't feel the tone used in previous mails was injurious, but let's make a depersonalised sumary of the debate: * Not all mentors share the same packaging practices, some are good for one, some not. * If a packager request a sponsor, the sponsor is free to accept or not, and so to impose its own quality standard. * quality standard are discussed from the sponsoring point of view. Some say this point is a blocker for a sponsor, while others do believe it is not important. My point is that I often got nervous when a review only criticise some minor point in the package that I feel more of a personal choice than required, and I had to accept do change things that I did not feel important at all to comply to the sponsor requests despite my own advice. On the other hand, everytime is was, again, *minor* things, so only a 5 minute change that worth the sponsoring :) But I think that a sponsor should only impose changes that are related to policy, and if he thinks that or this should be required then request to add it on the policy. Also, I appreciate to have more explanation on mails, so that I don't feel like a robot, and learn better the process. Time is not really an issue, you can spend more time on one package review with less reviews at all. Nothing personnal in this, and no flames :) Romain
