On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:43:15PM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote: > > I can give a couple of reasons why just using the packager-sponsors tracker > always would be better. This is from the point of view of somebody who had > to find a sponsor. I am not a sponsor myself, so I do not really know this > looks from that side. > > 1. The process is currently so complicated that newcomers are frequently > confused and dissuaded by it. Having just a single way would make it > simpler. Of these two options, the single way would have to be the tracker, > because the FE-NEEDSPONSOR method only works for new package submissions. > > 2. In the tracker, you can write your "letter of application" in the > description, and add all the proof you have. So you can first evaluate > yourself, gather more proof if you think it will be needed, and only submit > an application when you feel you are ready. For FE-NEEDSPONSOR, it is not so > clear. The same thing can be done in the review request comments, of course. > But then the review request and the sponsorship request get mixed up, but > actually they are two different things. > > 3. It may be just my impression, but the system of adding the FE-NEEDSPONSOR > link feels a bit like "don't call us, we'll call you". Saying that you can > file an issue and it will be looked at feels more friendly and inviting. Sure, I agree with all of that. However, If everyone who wanted to be added to packager was told to file a issue, I am not at all sure we can promise 'it would be looked at'. All the packager-sponsors tickets go to everyone in the packager sponsors group, but I've only ever seen a small fraction of them respond to any tickets. ;( I am not sure if thats because they don't want to deal with sponsoring co-maintainers (the current 'reason' to file a ticket there) or something else, but I worry that it would just result in a big backlog of tickets there. :( Additionally, I fear it would also leed to 'HI, make me a packager' type tickets (with no other info). We could of course close those or ask for more info, but then someone has to manage that. > > Apart from co-maintenance, the tracker is also important for the case where > somebody wants to become a pacakger to rescue an orphaned package. Well, in the past we have asked such folks to file a review request and get the orphaned package re-reviewed. To be clear, I'm happy to try and adjust things to make it simpiler as long as we have buy in from sponsors that they would work with the new process. :) Thanks for the feedback... hopefully we can come out of this with a newer better process. kevin
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
