Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

[Michael Schwendt]

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