On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 20:23:22 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: > [...] my idea was just that some kind of reminder if no-one > takes the ball , however that is defined (comment from sponsor, assigned > to sponsor, ...) within some time. That wouldn't be helpful. There would only be a notification about package submitters, who are inactive and wait for something to happen. The sponsorship process requires _two_ parties to be active. Working on the package during review often is much easier than working on it during its later lifetime in the package collection. > > It's always possible for the newcomer to ask for help on devel@ list. > > Communicate! > True. But I know newcomers for which sending a mail to this list is a > major step you don't really are ready for at that point. Believe it or > not, I was one of them. That makes it harder to convince a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group All I can report here is that, regularly, new packagers follow those instructions and are not too shy either to contact sponsors privately. Basic things like posting to mailing-lists (at Fedora or upstream) and opening tickets (at Fedora or upstream) may be prerequisites for getting sponsored. It can happen that a newcomer needs to contact upstream already during review. Sometimes submitters prefer dropping off. There are also "Fedora Mentors" that could be consulted: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mentors#Packaging > > If I search the Review Queue for your email address, I also find a > > much older attempt at submitting a package in 2008, and even then there > > has been quick feedback from a reviewer (after only five days). But > > after a series of comments, it gets harder to understand what has > > happened, and later you've not responded to the "ping" from a potential > > sponsor ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/471575 ). > > > > So, I think you're not fair. > > That package was actually a last attempt, which worked (thanks Petr!). > That said, I havn't blamed anyone, just described my own feeling. How > could that be unfair? I think the sponsorship process has worked well for you in 2012 with very quick sponsorship. It may have been different several years ago, but are we talking about the process as it works nowadays or in 2008? I also think it's too negative to refer to "a last attempt" without examining the details of your first attempt in 2008 and an explanation of what has happened there. I don't remember the size of the review queue in 2008. I don't know how many sponsors have been active in 2008. I don't remember whether the Review Tracker Website has been active already. I don't know whether you've tried to contact sponsors or whether you've asked the reviewer whether he might recommend a sponsor? You've submitted a completely different package in 2012. Here's an interpretation of what may have happened in 2008: In ticket 471575 you've received feedback from a reviewer after five days. So far so good. Several comments on the same day have been exchanged. There has not been any updated pair of spec/src.rpm however. Just a spec, and that might have interrupted the reviewers workflow. Many reviewers -- okay, some, but I guess many others do it similarly -- return to review tickets based on what happens in their related email folder. For example, they react to incoming bugzilla mails where they see that the reviewer has posted an updated package. They can mark such mails and delete other mails. That way they don't need to revisit a growing number of tickets only to find there has not been any activity. In this ticket, nothing has happened anymore. It would have been an idea to ask the reviewer. Either with a specific request in bugzilla or via email. That doesn't seem to have happened. There has not been an update on contributed reviews. Silence. In the same way, half a year later, a sponsor has joined and has even used the NEEDINFO flag in the two tickets and ping'ed several times, but that has not been responded to anymore. That has been a disappointing experience also for the sponsor, especially if there are more submitters who don't respond. Oh, and I found a ticket from 2011 that has not been assigned to "Rawhide" (all reviews are assigned to Rawhide), has been without the needsponsor link initially and has been closed as a duplicate in less than two months. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
