Thank you all for the feedback. > The bottom line is that package reviews can be quite time consuming. I > don't think the issue is with sponsorship itself. Sorry Jason, I probably didn't communicate my idea as clearly as I should. My intention wasn't to assign sponsors to review tickets and make them do the actual review. I am trying to address the situation where a ticket already has a fedora-review+ flag but it was given by a reviewer who is not a sponsor. > You're saying that tickets were properly filed with the > packager-sponsors tracker and those were not addressed? I checked the > open tickets before responding. I didn't see anything. If tickets got > closed without any action being taken, could you point out those > tickets? That would be a rather odd state of affairs Not in the packager-sponsors tracker, I checked it out, and I must say it is being processed flawlessly. Really good job there. Reading the discussion, I think we discovered one of the main issues elsewhere - We don't properly instruct new contributors to create a ticket in the tracker. This will be a big improvement: https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs/pull-request/118 To point out the specific tickets that weren't addressed, they are here: https://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/needsponsor.html > But I think this is not outreachy enough. I agree, so my next step will be improving the fedora-review-service to post a comment about how to find a sponsor, in case fedora-review+ flag was given by a non-sponsor. More info in this RFE: https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service/issues/18 > From this thread I get > the opposite impression, that Pagure tickets are processed quickly and > FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockers are not looked at. If so, I propose the policy > is updated to ask for a Pagure ticket in every case. I get the same impression and I would agree with Otto's proposal to get rid of the FE-NEEDSPONSOR entirely. Apart from it not being processed as effectively as the package-sponsor repo tickets, the FE-NEEDSPONSOR is confusing anyway (it is set to a review ticket but the ticket doesn't need to be sponsored, the contributor does. That becomes weird when the contributor has more tickets at the same time and so on). But if I understand correctly, FESCo needs to be involved and therefore this would be a long-term goal. > Please exclude me from such spam. I was finally able to find some numbers and it turns out, we successfully sponsor ~100 people a year. That is much more than I expected, so I now understand your point. We are also much more effective than I thought (well you guys are). > Sure, just plumb the end of the review process (accepted ticket) to feed > right into the sponsor process (let the sponsors know, preferably via > the tracker). But I don't think that assigning unreviewed tickets to > random sponsors is the right way. This can work and will be easy to implement as well. I like the idea, we can try it :-) Jakub On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 11:57 PM Otto Liljalaakso <otto.liljalaakso@xxxxxx> wrote: > > Jason Tibbitts kirjoitti 3.4.2023 klo 20.09: > >>>>>> Miroslav Suchý <msuchy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > In any case, what I wrote was the procedure I documented it when I set > > it up. If all of that documentation was lost, then I don't know what to > > say but that's not what was intended. > > > > I drove the change that made this happen. I made sure the documentation > > (in the wiki at the time) referenced the procedure. If that was lost > > after the time when I was able to be very active in Fedora, then that's > > a sad state of affairs and I don't know why that would happen, but it > > would be really good if it could un-happen. Did FESCo revert the policy > > change or something? > > Somewhat recently, the Packager sponsor policy [1] has been rewritten. > The history is that moved content over from the wiki to the Package > Maintainer Docs, then edited it to make things more clear. Later, I > realized that what I edited was actually intended to be a FESCo-approved > policy, just not clearly marked as such in the wiki and editable by > anyone. So I went to FESCo to get the material officially approved - see > the pull request [2]. > > The result of this is that it is currently a FESCo policy that for new > packages, the sponsorship is requested by blocking the FE-NEEDSPONSOR > Bugzilla, and for all other paths by filing a Pagure ticket. The reason > why I wrote the pull request like that is that at that time, there was > discussion about this on devel where I proposed using Pagure tickets for > new packages also, but got negative feedback [3]. > > The gist of that negative feedback was "very few sponsors are looking at > the Pagure tickets, we cannot process that many". From this thread I get > the opposite impression, that Pagure tickets are processed quickly and > FE-NEEDSPONSOR blockers are not looked at. If so, I propose the policy > is updated to ask for a Pagure ticket in every case. > > [1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/ > [2]: https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs/pull-request/59 > [3]: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/X54HX23AFVNPHROX5ULPAEW5YGKWOLPI/ > _______________________________________________ > 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
