On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:31:59 +1000, GG (Guido) wrote: > To go back to initial proposal of > revitalizing sponsor role, I think it would also be a good thing, > given that we leverage on new possible sponsor responsibilities > (ie, supervise new sponsorees' commits for X time after package > creation, not just step in when there is something to fix). That's no new responsibilities. Sponsors have always been expected to do that. With pkgdb, it requires "watch*" access to the packages. Else it requires subscribing to the scm-commits list and filtering by username/packagename. I've done that, and I've been aware of sponsors who have done that, too. The 'X time after package creation' has never been defined anywhere, and I don't think it would be a good idea to define it as a constant. The level of hand-holding varies a lot. > More sponsors should bring more control, not easier membership. Too vague. Please expand on that. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.2-8.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.05 0.04 0.08 -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
