[aur-general] TU Application

Allan McRae allan at archlinux.org
Tue Jul 29 20:40:00 EDT 2008

DaNiMoTh wrote:
> 2008/7/29 Angel Velásquez <angvp at 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.


More information about the aur-general mailing list