On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 17:22:59 +0200, Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > * Ankur Sinha [20/08/2021 12:27] : > > > > I totally understand the point of the system we have in place, but I do > > see how it doesn't quite address the case of upstream developers or > > individuals who'd just like to maintain their few packages. > > > To be fair, the system does address the case of the upstream developers: > it is recommended that they co-maintain the packages of their software but > leave ownership of the packages to experienced packagers. > This has been explained to Joan a number of times. Yes, but at the moment no experienced packager has stepped in to take on the package so that Joan can co-maintain it. > > > So, here, I'd rather have Joan, who is the developer and has been > > actively engaging with the community to get the package included > > (including going through the review), and so who I'd trust to look after > > their package, on the team than not. > > The small issue I have is that, while Joan claims to want to become a > packager in the mails he sends to the devel list@, he a) is very secretive > about what steps he has taken to seek out a sponsor and b) has said in > the review bug that he has no intentions of following the guidelines. Hrm, assuming you're referring statements like the ones in comment 9, I don't read them as "I don't intend to follow the guidelines" but rather "I only want to maintain this one package that I develop, so I don't want to do more reviews". The review has passed, so they have followed the guidelines there and made the necessary changes. > Let's hope this dichotomy gets resolved sooner than later. +1 I think my primary concern at the moment is that we've managed to set up a system that requires (for good reason) people to work on multiple reviews/packages to join the package maintainers team. For upstream developers that would like to maintain packages in distributions, this will not scale if all distributions have similar requirements. So, the profile of a package maintainer becomes limited to relatively advanced users of the particular software who are willing to help upstream and who are also faithful Fedora users. So, if we can do anything to make it easier for developers to just maintain their one or two tools for the Fedora community, that'll be good. I am not suggesting that we do away with the sponsorship requirements by any means but some mechanism would be nice to ensure we take advantage of upstream developers who are happy to do some limited extra work to maintain their packages in Fedora. -- Thanks, Regards, Ankur Sinha "FranciscoD" (He / Him / His) | https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Ankursinha Time zone: Europe/London
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
