DaNiMoTh wrote:
2008/7/29 Angel Velásquez <angvp@archlinux.com.ve>:
I agree with Ronald, but i think that we've said enough, i hope this experience will teach us a lesson, and we worked as a team in that situation and i feel good with this.
Besides, i don't agree with blame Allan, could happened of any of us, the important fact is that we (his team) helped him with this situation,
I don't want to blame Allan; My words was for all, and because this I have posted here. This situation could happen to all, you told, and you're right.
For the record, I think I should be blamed. When you sponsor someone, you are taking responsibility for them, not only by saying they are a good candidate but also during their initial phase as a TU to help them get used to the system and not break the community repo. I stuffed up here and will take the blame. If no-one takes blame, then what is the point of sponsorship. As an explaination for my actions (and not wanting to sound defensive), I think I was too lenient on checking the applicants qualifications primarily because he was the third person who asked me to sponsor him that day. The first two I suggested apply later due to being fairly new to the Arch community despite probably being good candidates. So when I got a third applicant that had been around for about a year and had good Linux experience (excluding the Debian developer thing), I decided to take a risk. As far as checking the Debian developer claim goes, I was told he maintained ~10 packages in 2001/2002. I couldn't find much (non-self generated) signal on google but then I didn't really expect to. Good catch by other TUs to look in changelogs. If anything, I am happy the discussion period works and thank everybody for being critical of an applicant, even one who has a sponsor. Cheers, Allan