Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 07:47:52 -0800 > 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): >> >> 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. > > We sort have stalled out on this. > > I think the above is great, but the open question is who applies the > above guideline to folks requesting membership in provenpackager. > > Robert had a proposal for this, but FESCo didn't like it. ;( > > I would like to propose several possible options and ask for feedback > on them: > > A) Provenpackager sponsors are set to FESCo members and RELENG members. > They apply the above guideline and approve people into the group. > (This would be a smaller pool of people than C below). > > B) Provenpackagers submit a request to FESCo and are voted on in > meetings and approved by a majority vote. Note that this doesn't scale > too well if there are a lot of requests. > > C) Provenpackager sponsors are set to the same as Sponsors in the > packager group. Anyone in that pool can apply the above guideline and > approve someone into the group. > > Anyone have other proposals or like/dislike any of these? > We need to get this finished. > I like (B) the best. This is with the idea that the number of provenpackagers would be similar to the number of sponsors. If provenpackagers is supposed to be a larger group then (C) seems like the only one that's going to scale well. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
