On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 16:23 +0100, Robert Scheck wrote: > Uberpackagers/provenpackagers should be persons well known to the community > and having some presence at packagers. So a person only having 5 packages > gets a uberpackager/provenpackager, something really goes wrong IMHO. Yes, > we've changed that, but we should not make the status depend on packages or > some time at all, but on presence and knowledge of the person. That's who we're starting the group with, the current package sponsors. People whom we trust to bring new contributors into the packager group, we're now also going to trust them to bring new packagers into the provenpackager group. > > The other thing is, which is much more important, that not a single person > can sponsor a uberpackager/provenpackager. I was thinking about some kind > of "voting". Of course not a voting that kind, that all current sponsors > are getting notified via e-mail, but the possibility, that every sponsor > can add +1/0/-1 in FAS to a guy wanting to get uberpackager/provenpackager. > And if "charma" of that candidate is +5 or +10 in the end, the guy gets > uberpackager/provenpackager. If a sponsor is doing nothing, it's just +0/ > -0, but the sponsors should not get bothered about each request of a new > candidate. Interesting thought, I'd like to see a full proposal brought to FESCo over this matter. > > Anyway for that we IMHO must reset the current uberpackager/provenpackager > list and restart with an empty one. Otherwise that doesn't make sense to me > and it doesn't change nor solve our problems we introduced in the past... We're starting with the existing group of people who have already been vetted by FESCo, that is the current sponsors. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
