[aur-general] TU Application

[Ronald van Haren]

On Tue, Jul 29, 2008 at 9:26 AM, DaNiMoTh <jjdanimoth at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2008/7/29 Ronald van Haren <pressh at gmail.com>:
> [cut]
>> Don't worry about being the sponsor, it could've been any of us. It is
>> nearly impossible for the sponsor to verify everything by himself all
>> the time as he might be busy with other things. As applications can't
>> put on hold for too long, that's where the rest of the group kicks in.
>
> Sorry, but IMHO this isn't right.
>

I see your point, and I actually partly share it. What he could've
checked was the dev part of his story, and when doing so Allan could
have decided not to sponsor him (thinking of it maybe he should have
done so). What he could not have  verified IMHO was the persons
attitude, and I think I can speak of most of us that we do not want
somebody with his kind of attitude in our group, no matter what he did
in the past (sure he could have a private discussion period but that
does not make a lot of sense).


> A sponsor needs to verify his candidate.
> I could share with you my past: 3-4 months of Archlinux security,
> personal repo with compiz and xgl, with the help ( when I need it for
> some PKGBUILD ) of voidnull and molok. Then, my application: all TUs
> know me for my works, and not for my words.
>
> If we starts ( as it is already done ) to sponsor everyone only for
> increase the number of TUs, we're wrong. Absolutely wrong. And we will
> see TUs that appear and disappear in one week, many orphaned packages
> in community, etc.

Last I want is take this kind of people on board. As I've said in the
past I like to see lots of PKGBUILDs maintained by an applicant for
some time as that's the main point on which we can rate them, and
mostly resembles (except the building) the work they would be doing if
approved.

> Finally, do what you want, I have one vote, I will use it.
>
>

Sure you do, you're not allowed to skip too much votes :P

Guess my point is more clear now.

Ronald