Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

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

On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 16:31:59 +1000, GG (Guido) wrote:

> To go back to initial proposal of
> revitalizing sponsor role, I think it would also be a good thing,
> given that we leverage on new possible sponsor responsibilities
> (ie, supervise new sponsorees' commits for X time after package
> creation, not just step in when there is something to fix).

That's no new responsibilities. Sponsors have always been expected to do
that. With pkgdb, it requires "watch*" access to the packages. Else
it requires subscribing to the scm-commits list and filtering by
username/packagename. I've done that, and I've been aware of sponsors
who have done that, too.

The 'X time after package creation' has never been defined anywhere,
and I don't think it would be a good idea to define it as a constant.
The level of hand-holding varies a lot.

> More sponsors should bring more control, not easier membership.

Too vague. Please expand on that.

Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.2-8.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.05 0.04 0.08
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