amending the new package process

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos]

On Thu, 2015-01-22 at 11:30 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:

> > > Penalize in what sense? 
> > In the sense, that in addition to packaging something new you have to
> > review something else in order to get your new package in. If reviewing
> > is voluntary it should affect every packager the same, not just the ones
> > who bring new packages.
> I think there's another aspect here which hasn't been mentioned.
> Generally, Fedora's policy compliance mechanisms are based on _initial
> gating_. That is, we have a really strict package review, but once a
> package is in, you can deviate from the guidelines like crazy and we
> have no ongoing process to catch that, and only ad-hoc approaches for
> correcting something gone really wrong.
> Basically, once a package is in, we rely on trust in its maintainer.
> And, this extends a step out to package maintainers themselves — we
> have a high initial bar to getting a package in, but once you're
> sponsored, we assign a great deal of trust.
> So, in some respects, the incredibly painful process works
> _intentionally_ to weed out contributors who aren't serious enough to
> get over that hurdle, on the theory that those who do stay and surmount
> it have earned a certain level of project merit and trust.

I understand, and I agree in principle with that. However, the issue
here is not that there are strict or conflicting reviews. The main issue
is that it is difficult to get any reviews.

regards,
Nikos