Joerg Jaspert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 10137 March 1977, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > >> wanted to do this for months but never got around to it, so I asked >> Joerg today if he can prepare something. However, I feel it might be >> good to do some brainstorming first so we can come up with a list of >> things to put into this check-list. > > So for the first thoughts, more to follow: > - Applicant needs to already have some work done for Debian. > A packager at least one package, a translator continues work on > translating $stuff in Debian, etc. > - Applicant needs at least a basic knowledge how things work. The more > the better. He should have read policy at least once IMO. devel-ref > too. > - If he is a packager he should have shown good work with his packages > and bugs. Means - no open bugs without any comment for a long > timeframe.
Also, I think an advocate should know the applicant fairly well in terms of personality/work ethic/etc. In other words, the advocate should have worked with the applicant in the past and have a good feel for how the applicant works with others. Also knowing the applicant in person is a very good thing, but should not be a requirement. For example, Khalid Aziz's report included an advocate who knew and worked with him personal and an additional comment provided a sponsor who was also a co-worker. Even though Khalid hadn't done too much work for Debian, I thought the comments really improved the overall report and made it very easy to approve him. When a well-respected developer says something like, "I know this applicant very well personally and he's a great person and worker," it really provides an insight that is otherwise absent in the report. -- For every sprinkle I find, I shall kill you!
