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
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RevitalizingSponsorshipProposal
>
> 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
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
[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]