Hi Anton, On Fri, 4 Dec 2015 18:50:48 +0100 Anton Gladky <gl...@debian.org> wrote: > Hi Thomas, > > I would recommend you also to contact debian-science team, > if you do not find a sponsor. > > There are some people, which are working on R-packages, so > they may be interested in this package also.
thanks! Will turn there, next, if I can't find a volunteer, here. Although RKWard packaging is inherently quite different, technically, to the R packages I have looked at (arguably, the same may hold for KDE packages). Also, again, this is now a KDE.org project, and I'm hoping that's reason enough to make it a candidate for "adoption". > Also, there should be a lot of people around your place, if you > want to reintroduce your GPG-key in Debian keyring. This is going to be a bit off-topic, but to elaborate on that part a bit: I did look into this some, googled, and even contacted several people (only to find out that the location database is totally out of date, every single one of them had moved). My estimate is that I would have to expend *at least* 3 working hours per signature, not even counting the coordination. Spread that across a dozen packages, and it may not look all that terrible. Six hours of bureaucratic work for a single package are pretty crazy in my book, though. Besides, the larger picture is that this is not the first such bureaucratic burden, and unlikely to be the last one. For instance, when the DM-Upload-Allowed-Field was taken out of service, requiring a sponsor upload, only my old sponsor was missing in action, that was not a happy situation to be in, either. In fact, with all strings attached (I'll spare you the details), it caused me a comparable amount of time lost and considerable frustration on top of that. I'm not going to whine about this, but my observation is quite simply that in my position as a single-package DM-without-sponsor, the ratio between bureaucratic overhead and working on the package is simply disastrous. Regards Thomas
Description: OpenPGP digital signature