On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 04:37:22PM +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > > > And there is nothing wrong with review swaps. You help others, > > > > they help you. > > > That's good for you, but unacceptable to me. That way we penalize people > > > who add packages. > > Penalize in what sense? > In the sense, that in addition to packaging something new you have to > review something else in order to get your new package in. If reviewing > is voluntary it should affect every packager the same, not just the ones > who bring new packages. I think there's another aspect here which hasn't been mentioned. Generally, Fedora's policy compliance mechanisms are based on _initial gating_. That is, we have a really strict package review, but once a package is in, you can deviate from the guidelines like crazy and we have no ongoing process to catch that, and only ad-hoc approaches for correcting something gone really wrong. Basically, once a package is in, we rely on trust in its maintainer. And, this extends a step out to package maintainers themselves — we have a high initial bar to getting a package in, but once you're sponsored, we assign a great deal of trust. So, in some respects, the incredibly painful process works _intentionally_ to weed out contributors who aren't serious enough to get over that hurdle, on the theory that those who do stay and surmount it have earned a certain level of project merit and trust. Now, I'm not saying that this is the best possible approach — or even that it really works. But I think it _is_ an important angle. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
