>>>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi writes: KF> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 07:47:52 -0800 KF> Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > We don't currently have guidelines for granting access to proven >> packager. I took a work item from FESCo to create a draft for >> this, and here is my first stab at it (words in camelcase exist to >> be replaced with links to pages concerning them): KF> Thanks for working on this! >> Provenpackager is a group of highly skilled package maintainers who >> are experienced in a wide variety of package types and who are >> intimately familiar with the PackagingGuidelines and >> MaintainerPolicies as well as acutely aware of ReleaseSchedules and >> FreezePolicies. They exist as a group to lend a hand when help is >> needed, always with a desire to improve the quality of Fedora. By >> granting membership into provenpackager for a maintainer you are >> confirming that at least in your mind they meet the above criteria >> and that you would trust them fully with any of the packages you >> either maintain or even just use. KF> That sounds good to me. KF> We might also want to mention and/or revisit/cleanup: KF> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/Policy/WhoIsAllowedToModifyWhichPackages KF> now as well. So is provenpackager going to be reseeded with sponsors only? If that is so, I'll lose my current ability to fix packages as I am not a sponsor at this time. I have particularly focused on fixing broken deps in rawhide (my pet peeve, especially close to releases) for the last few release cycles and I hope my work has been useful. I thought the initial way of seeding the list (i.e. maintainers with a large number of packages) was fine, were there any cases where people passed this threshold and then went abused (inadvertantly or otherwise) their ability to commit and build a larger number of packages? I fear that if the bar for provenpackager is raised too high (i.e. only sponsors) and requires too many hoops to jump through to get in, then my motivation to work on Fedora will be severely curtailed and I suspect there may be others. Please individually consider the work of the maintainers in the current provenpackager list have been doing before removing them en-masse. Related to this, it seems that there are still maintainers who appear to want to lock up their packages even from "provenpackager". As a concrete example, user "rezso" (I've requested him to re-open them in private e-mail to no avail) locked down several of his packages such as: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/mapserver http://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/mapnik http://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packages/name/gdal These are packages that regularly needs to be rebuilt when sonames are bumped and frequently lies dormant in a "broken deps" state for weeks at a time and would benefit being available to provenpackagers to rebuild. (It's currently broken right now because of the MySQL soname bump and there's no good reason why it shouldn't be available for provenpackager to fix it). Alex -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
