Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On the other hand, the only way it will get examined is if someone who > thinks it's worth trying has the ability to try it. Otherwise we end up > with endless discussion that just doesn't go anywhere.
> Giving more people the ability to try out their ideas directly is > valuable, and if the risks can be kept low, entirely worth doing. Hm. I have to admit I'd be much more inclined to vote for things like this that I don't really like but that may work out if they self-destructed in a year unless confirmed by a second vote. > The checks done by the keyring maintainers should be the exception, not > the rule, and ultimately should be about as common as rejections as the > "passed through all steps and are now waiting for the DAM to create > their account" stage in n-m. I've no idea whether that will be the case > right for the word go, or how long it'll take to get to the point where > it's obvious what checks are useful to DDs in general that getting it > wrong really will be a once-every-few-years occurence. Bleh. So mostly a rubber stamp, then. This feels like sponsorship except with even fewer quality checks after the first sponsorship. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
