Third-party non-involved user chiming in, but I do not think any sort of tenure/seniority requirement as mentioned in the final point below would be a good idea. Something based on recent activity would be better. On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 1:38 AM Bruno Pagani via aur-general < aur-general@archlinux.org> wrote:
Le 27/11/2018 à 16:32, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general a écrit :
On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 01:29:31PM -0500, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote:
On TU applications, TU participation and package quality: everythign snipped I just wanted to bump this thread.
It appears to me that bumping the minimum number of TU sponsors + a buddy system would be the way to go?
Should we move on to formalize this?
Thanks, -Santiago.
I like part of Xyne ideas, that finally are just what good common sense should be:
– The need to know who you sponsor a while before letting them apply; – The need to advocate for your candidate; – The need of several sponsors (maybe 2 should be enough if they are well chosen), but I would say beforehand, in order to have at least 2 reviews of the applicant PKGBUILDs before actually applying. And one of the sponsors should have been there for at least some years (not sure what would be a good number, 3, 5?).
Regards, Bruno