>>>>> "KD" == Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: KD> Looks good to me. I was unaware that sponsors are (currently) also KD> provenpackagers. I've considered the idea of becoming a sponsor KD> myself, but when I read the archived tickets where other people KD> smarter than me have been denied, the barrier to entry seemed too KD> high. Yes, that's the problem I'm trying to address. KD> Could you expand a bit on what you consider "high-quality, KD> non-trivial package reviews" ? As explained in the proposal, that's intentionally left vague. The idea is to have the sponsors discuss whether the reviews meet the criteria. If the authority for elevating packagers to sponsors were delegated to the sponsors, we could even work out refinements to this ourselves. Currently it's in the hands of FESCo and to my knowledge there are no published criteria available. I know I have my own opinions, which might not be the same as those of everyone else. For the record, my opinion would be something close to "package reviews which are comprehensive, don't miss important packaging problems and aren't entirely of identical autogenerated Perl modules or the like". - J< -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
