[aur-general] TU Application: David Runge

Rashif Ray Rahman schiv at archlinux.org
Tue Oct 24 14:22:16 UTC 2017

On 24 October 2017 at 11:50, Levente Polyak <anthraxx at archlinux.org> wrote:
> At this point my feedback goes to the sponsor instead of the applicant:
> Sorry, but I must say that I really dislike sponsoring a TU applicant without looking at any PKGBUILD and give some advice. In my world this is part of the sponsorship and one of the jobs of a "TU mentor". I understand that you could certainly make some judgment based on the contributions you mentioned, but still.
> I hope this will not become a trend, otherwise we could also just get rid of the whole sponsorship (which we shouldn't).

Err, I never wrote that I did not check his packages. I only wrote I
did not check his packages "thoroughly". Perhaps I should have been so
honest, but thanks for raising your concern.

What are you referring to as a "trend"? A TU sponsor usually just
confirms a sponsorship. The assumption is that before sending in the
proposal, the sponsor has already done the pre-requisite review and

I am not going to be pedantic about many things which are fixable (I
couldn't care less about them myself). I am satisfied with what I have
seen and leave the rest up to the community. The by-laws prescribe a
discussion period for exactly this aspect of peer review.

If perhaps you (or anyone else) thought I simply picked him at random,
then that is a misunderstanding. There were several other candidates,
and I had to spend the time to calculate several metrics to decide on
one. That includes checking _some_ packages -- it's called sampling.


More information about the aur-general mailing list