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 < [email protected]> 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?). > > Regards, > Bruno > > >
