Fwd: Re: Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging (w correct link)

[Alec Leamas]

I got the trailing link wrong, here is same message with link OK (no 
punctuation )

On 04/26/2012 04:58 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>  On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:17:09 +0200, AL (Alec) wrote:
>  [cut]
>  And for the second part, that somebody has "a good connection with
>  upstream", I'm not sure how that will help, *if* not even one packager
>  is available. Worse if the single person with interest in the software
>  also doesn't want to become the Fedora packager for it.
True. But if a packager is there, it's an advantage to have that
connection. Or?

My theory is that packaging actually takes place from time to time
despite all these obstacles, and that a motivated upstream contact makes
this easier.

>  IMO, the whole co-maintainer dilemma is that once there is first packager
>  (aka "the package owner"), everyone else hopes that the package is taken
>  care of (read: the existing packager does all the work). Of course, in
>  case of bugs or a package getting out-of-date, still nobody is willing to
>  contribute.
But if you pick someone's request   from an upcoming wishlist, you have
the chance to make a contract, so to speak before undertaking to package
the thing.  Not foolprof in any way, but better than today?!

[cut]
>  What I cannot take serious: if someone has submitted a package review
>  request in 2010 and in 2012 complains that the package is still in the queue.
>  If during such a long time, the submitter has not tried to review the own
>  package (or a different package in the queue) in accordance with the
>  guidelines. Very strange are also package submitters, who "talk to themselves"
>  by posting src.rpm updates in bugzilla without feedback from any reviewer,
>  but again without saying themselves "hey, I could take a look at the
>  ReviewGuidelines page myself and try to figure out whether my package is
>  ready, and if I think it's ready, join a list and announce that".
>
OT? The question here isn't really what submitters  do or don't, isn't
it what we could do to improve the process?.

I would really like to reconnect to Jon's reply at
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-April/166429.html
What can we do to support those people who have a great app they wan't
into Fedora, without forcing them to be (possibly bad) packagers?

This is related to the sponsorship process if we can find a way for some
of those which doesn't include sponsoring a new packager.

--a