[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

Am Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 08:15 -0800 schrieb Jesse Keating:
> On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 11:58 +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> >  For example I just found out that one of the people I sponsor is proven
> > packager. Of course I do trust him, otherwise I would not have sponsored
> > him, but I doubt that 2 packages (!) and 3 months of experience are
> > enough for a proven packager.
> > 
> > This shows that Jesse's proposal is pretty much useless, because it is
> > weaker then the previous set of rules, no matter if it was 5 or 8
> > packages.
> My proposal is to seed provenpackager with people who are /sponsors/.
> It has absolutely nothing to do with how many packages you have.  How is
> this weaker?  How would my suggested seeding lead to your people being
> in provenpackager?

>From your proposal:

"By granting membership into
provenpackager for a maintainer you are confirming that at least in your
mind they meet the above criteria and that you would trust them fully
with any of the packages you either maintain or even just use."

Effectively this means: Only a single sponsor needs to trust the
particular person to make him a proven packager, no matter how many
other sponsors disagree with that decision. IMO this requirement is
weaker than a given number of packages.
After he was sponsored the new proven packager can sponsor as many other
"pseudo-proven" packagers as he wants, even if they are not trustworthy.
Other sponsors have no way to prevent this, so I'm pretty sure we'll end
up with a large number of proven packagers again pretty soon.

Or am I mistaken here?


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]