On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 11:53 AM, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 11:05:37 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote: > >> 2011/11/22 Bruno Wolff III: >> > One area where we could probably do more advertising for is getting new >> > packagers via the co-maintainer route. I think most of the new packagers >> > still come in by packaging a new package. I think we really want most of >> > the new packagers coming in as co-maintainers. >> >> Yes, this seems to be an chicken-or-the-egg issue. There seems to be >> permanent resource shortages with package maintenance which means we >> need more contributors, and then at the same time there are hundreds >> of package reviews languishing, many of which need sponsors. > > Uh, come on, ... package submitters waiting on the NEEDSPONSOR list > could _really_ work a little bit more actively on persuading potential > sponsors of their packaging skills. Instead, some wait silently for > months without doing any package review themselves. That may be true, but from my own experience, it could also because they're intimidated by the whole process. Submitting my first package I certainly felt intimidated by the process. I was lucky I had good sponsors to walk me through the process but I'm not sure that everyone is. > In other cases, reviewers post reviews, but it takes many weeks or > months for the package submitter to respond. What does that tell > potential sponsors about the submitter's motivation to become a > package maintainer? I won't argue that that doesn't happen because it does > Btw, it has happened before that people have been sponsored without > doing a couple of package reviews. Sometimes as a result of them > actively seeking for a sponsor. That may be easier than waiting for > magic to happen. We still don't have enough package reviewers. > >> I don't want to get too far off topic but being short handed is >> directly related... >> >> Does the sponsor processes need to be more formalized? Currently you >> must be nominated (either by someone or yourself) but there's no >> concrete requirements on a knowledge or skill level required to be a >> sponsor. >> >> To bring it to a more personal level, I have no idea if I've done or >> proven myself enough to become a sponsor or not. If I am deficient in >> an area, there's currently no formal feedback mechanism for me to know >> in what areas I need to improve. >> >> I can't be the only person stuck in this nebulous position... > > And still there have been self-nominations before. > You could look up FESCo tickets of past nominations. I never thought about that, perhaps it should be added to the contributor wiki? > Are you an active reviewer? It comes in spurts when I have time, but yes. That also begs the question: How does a sponsor find future sponsors? Just because I complete an informal or formal review doesn't mean that a sponsor sees it, unless there's some system that provides visibility that I'm unaware of. Thanks, Richard -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
