[aur-general] On TU application, TU participation and community/ package quality
ngoonee.talk at gmail.com
Wed Nov 28 03:19:55 UTC 2018
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 at 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?).
More information about the aur-general