Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> For a while now I have been working on a proposal for some changes to
> both the way we elevate packagers to sponsors and what (to a small
> extent) sponsors actually do.  Please note that this is not a proposal
> for any changes to how people are made members of the packager group in
> the first place and does not change the privileges of existing sponsors.
> My proposal is at
> I've run this by FESCo, whose response was favorable, so I'm sending
> this to a larger audience.  Please let me know what you think.

Looks good to me. I was unaware that sponsors are (currently) also
provenpackagers. I've considered the idea of becoming a sponsor
myself, but when I read the archived tickets where other people
smarter than me have been denied, the barrier to entry seemed too
high. Previously I've just used the "co-maintain to proxy sponsor"
route, which isn't super optimal.

Could you expand a bit on what you consider "high-quality, non-trivial
package reviews" ?

- Ken
devel mailing list

[Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Legacy Announce]     [Home]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel List]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

Add to Google Powered by Linux