On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:44:05 +0200 Alek Paunov <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 20.03.2012 20:30, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 03:12:37 +0200 > > Alek Paunov<alex at declera.com> wrote: > > > >> Which is the proper way to vote and describe potential benefits of > >> a new package, with candidate maintainer who needs sponsorship. > > > > Voting for what? > > For the package. As a Fedora user (not a packager at the time being) > I would be happy to see number of projects (whose upstream > development I closely follow) as a Fedora packages, but don't know > how/where to express this and how to share my humble points about the > potential benefits to the Distribution if we have them. Well, you could add comments to the bug or post to the devel list about how a package would improve the distribution, but there's nothing like voting. If people who are sponsors feel the package is important they will review it and sponsor the submitter. ;) > > Maintainers that need sponsorship have to use one of the methods on: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group > > > > Basically you need to convince a sponsor that you are trustworthy > > and ready to be sponsored. > > What happens when the candidate maintainer has done the packaging > task fairly well ([1] as instance), but obviously is not active > enough in the sponsor seeking? Which is the mechanism to "unstuck" > the important packages from this state? As mentioned, you could try extolling the virtues of the package in a post to the devel list and see if anyone is able to review/sponsor. kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
