Jonas Smedegaard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] and found in one of the bugreports for the package > the comment "i'm searching for a sponsor for the new revision."
Perhaps a sponsor who does not intend to sponsor the package any more should open a "RFS" bug in WNPP? No package should be introduced to the archive by a one-upload sponsor. [...] > A requirement that the Maintainer field always either matches an entry > in the Debian keyring or the email ends in "@debian.org" [...] I am flatly against this. It should be enough that Uploaders are listed. > "Uh, but then the non-DD can't prove the skills of packaging for the > NM-process," I hear you say. No - just have the non-DD write separate > changelog entries so that it is obvious what parts of the work you did > and the non-DD did. You should do that anyway! If you are given a version to sponsor and it doesn't pass OK, you should tell the maintainer what bugs need fixing. If you're going to work on it anyway, aren't the two of you co-maintainers rather than sponsor and maintainer? If you want to forbid sponsorship, then there are arguments for that, but I think it's a change to how we teach at present and debian would be the poorer for it. Please debate that change directly, rather than dressing it up as "only DDs should be credited as maintainers and DDs must take all responsibility". -- MJR/slef -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
