On 24 October 2017 at 11:50, Levente Polyak <anthr...@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 screening. 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. -- GPG/PGP ID: C0711BF1