question for board members

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael at gmx.net> writes:

MS> The issue here is that the reviewer only contributes reviews to meet
MS> dubious requirements:

Do you have a particular reviewer in mind, or are you somehow implying
that everyone who reviews packages does so to inflate their numbers?
Because my count was for some time right at the top of the list, and I
can categorically state that said count made no difference at all in
whether I chose to spend my time reviewing packages.

MS> 1) the ranking of who did the most reviews in the past week(s),

I didn't care at all.  Still don't.

MS> 2) the growing queue of review requests which is considered a
MS>    problem by some people,

I consider it a problem, because we have people who have obviously done
some work to become contributors and they deserve to at least receive
some response to their submission.

MS> 3) the new packager who has not been approved yet and might complain
MS>    loudly,

People can complain all they like; the quality of their work is all that
ever mattered to me.

MS> 4) the packager sponsor who is expected to sponsor new packagers
MS>    (who in the end might not contribute what Red Hat… uhm… Fedora
MS>    leadership is hoping for).

I fail to understand what you're getting at here.  I've never felt
pressure to sponsor anyone.  "Red Hat" or "Fedora" leadership never gave
any demands, requirements, restrictions or hopes to me regarding
sponsorship.

MS> Instead, we have packagers who own two dozen packages each (some own
MS> a hundred), only to orphan them after a year or so, because it
MS> became boring to update them and because no community developed
MS> around them.

I think that's OK.  We shouldn't be afraid to dump packages from the
distro when the maintainer goes away.  If someone really wants them,
someone will step up to contribute them.

 - J<