>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> writes: MS> The issue here is that the reviewer only contributes reviews to meet MS> dubious requirements: Do you have a particular reviewer in mind, or are you somehow implying that everyone who reviews packages does so to inflate their numbers? Because my count was for some time right at the top of the list, and I can categorically state that said count made no difference at all in whether I chose to spend my time reviewing packages. MS> 1) the ranking of who did the most reviews in the past week(s), I didn't care at all. Still don't. MS> 2) the growing queue of review requests which is considered a MS> problem by some people, I consider it a problem, because we have people who have obviously done some work to become contributors and they deserve to at least receive some response to their submission. MS> 3) the new packager who has not been approved yet and might complain MS> loudly, People can complain all they like; the quality of their work is all that ever mattered to me. MS> 4) the packager sponsor who is expected to sponsor new packagers MS> (who in the end might not contribute what Red Hat… uhm… Fedora MS> leadership is hoping for). I fail to understand what you're getting at here. I've never felt pressure to sponsor anyone. "Red Hat" or "Fedora" leadership never gave any demands, requirements, restrictions or hopes to me regarding sponsorship. MS> Instead, we have packagers who own two dozen packages each (some own MS> a hundred), only to orphan them after a year or so, because it MS> became boring to update them and because no community developed MS> around them. I think that's OK. We shouldn't be afraid to dump packages from the distro when the maintainer goes away. If someone really wants them, someone will step up to contribute them. - J< _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
