On Mon, 05 May 2008 12:36:49 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > If you agree with an upstream developer on maintaining a package in Fedora, > > either alone or with you as co-maintainer, does it matter how you do it? > > > > Well there always is this problem of someone becoming malicious, I guess if > someone really wants to he can easily just follow the normal process, so do a > couple of new packages and a couple of reviews, but this is lowering the > barrier to entry, which I'm fine with, but I atleast want others to know about > this and shout "NOOO" before continuing with this. That belongs into my [very] old series of queries related to "sponsor responsibilities", which is still unanswered because it's a complex topic. All the burden is on the shoulders of the sponsors. It's completely up to their judgement whom to sponsor, whether to interview a new contributor prior to approval, whether to collect and compare personal information retrieved from web search engines, whether to insist on seeing a demonstration of packaging skills during review of several packages, whether to serve as a proxy for a newbie packager, whether and when to trust somebody from the other side of the world, and so on. And still a contributor might become hostile after months and delete group-writable files in cvs under the umbrella of a "sorry, fat fingers" excuse. Then it's the sponsor's duty to repair the damage. [The new FAS is not nice to sponsors either. They need to load the full cvsextras members list and search for the account to sponsor. Something that resulted in time-outs the last two times I did it. For sponsors, there doesn't seem to be a list of people you sponsored.] -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
