----- Original Message ----- > From: "Michael Schwendt" <mschwendt@xxxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2012 1:01:51 PM > Subject: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging > > On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 17:03:25 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote: > > > For a while now I have been working on a proposal for some changes > > to > > both the way we elevate packagers to sponsors and what (to a small > > extent) sponsors actually do. Please note that this is not a > > proposal > > for any changes to how people are made members of the packager > > group in > > the first place and does not change the privileges of existing > > sponsors. > > > > My proposal is at > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RevitalizingSponsorshipProposal > > > > I've run this by FESCo, whose response was favorable, so I'm > > sending > > this to a larger audience. Please let me know what you think. > > There are a few unfortunate sections in the first paragraph already: > > | users have to go through an almost endless set of steps (which also > | needs revision, but that's another topic) > > Compared with a few years ago there are many newbie-packagers, who > apparently are not interested in the 'Packaging' related Wiki pages > and > not in the 'ReviewGuidelines' either. > > Such package[r]s in the review queue sit and wait for a reviewer to > do > __all__ the work including most basic tasks like running rpmlint or > running a test-build. And that inspite of the Wiki documents being > detailed and helpful enough nowadays ... compared with the brief > QACheckList from ancient times. Things commented on by reviewers > often are > applied to a spec file only reluctantly, without proper/clear > acknowledgement. A single "okay, I see" or "that makes sense" often > would > make a difference. > > With regard to 'mentoring', I favour people, who show better > communication > skills and who are more responsive. I appreciate feedback, even if > somebody disagrees and wants to discuss the guidelines instead of > simply > applying a spec file fix. Worse, however, are those who start with > Fedora > criticism in either bugzilla or private mail (such as considering the > guidelines as needless bureaucracy and finding fool language for that > even). A negative point of view related to how Fedora does something > is > not motivating potential sponsors. > > A few years ago, when I received private mail from somebody about > sponsorship, my reply would result in either a longer thread where to > discuss something or in a short acknowledgement and work move into > the review request. Nowadays, private mail mentions the wish to be > sponsored, but communication stops at that point because pointing > at the PackageMaintainers Wiki entry page apparently is considered > too much homework for the people who mail me. > > | and then pin their hopes on a review ticket that, due to an > | insufficient > | number of active sponsors, may not get looked at in a reasonable > | amount > | of time. > > It's disappointing to see that your "activity report" does not cover > activity in the review queue. I may be one of those, who has not > sponsored > anyone in the past year, but I post helpful (and detailed) review > comments > regularly and encounter inactive package submitters both in the > normal > queue and in the needsponsor queue. In the same way packagers cannot > guarantee to return with a reply in less than 1-3 months, I cannot > guarantee sponsoring somebody already with only a _single_ submitted > package, > where I have had to point at the Packaging Documentation multiple > times. I absolutely agree with this one. Not to mention that some of us might not do reviews/sponsorship at the same pace we do that in the past we are still very active in helping people doing there reviews, submit packages, update them through other channels - irc, mails, etc. And this is exactly what a sponsor is supposed to do. So this formal requirements are not correct. If someone wants to speed up the review process - we have to pay our technical debt. A gerrit like solution which checks the source rpm, build it, run rpmlint and add this as comments automatically so reviewers can fix their stuff prior to talking to a sponsor. And having an automated tool is great as people can not argue with it. Alex > > Also, I think it has become more important to be more careful about > who to > sponsor, because we are facing a growing number of orphans due to > packagers leaving the project without notice, as well as packagers > who > grab N>1 packages in pkgdb without actually handling them properly in > bugzilla (if at all). > > | Make some criteria that sponsors need to meet if they wish to > | remain sponsors. > > Forcing sponsors to fulfill such criteria is the wrong way IMO. It > may > result in even more blanket-approval sponsorships. > > -- > Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.2-8.fc17.x86_64 > loadavg: 0.14 0.18 0.21 > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
