<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jul 10, 2015 at 6:44 PM, Michael Schwendt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mschwendt@gmail.com" target="_blank">mschwendt@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 15:25:05 -0400, Ben Rosser wrote:<br>
<br>
> Speaking as someone who relatively recently went through the process though<br>
> (and whose package(s) sat in the review tracker for two years): motivation<br>
> is hard to come by when it looks like you're not going to get sponsored<br>
> because (you think) nobody cares about your package.<br>
<br>
</span>??? When exactly in the process does it look like you're not going to<br>
get sponsored? After a week? After a month? After having done 2-3 reviews<br>
and linked those reviews in the needsponsor ticket(s)? After having pointed<br>
at that work in a post to devel@ list?<br>
<br>
I would need to see your initial review requests to comment on this<br>
issue further.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't really want to turn this thread into a "why didn't I get sponsored sooner?" thread (and in fact, looking back, I'd guess not linking the two informal reviews I did wasn't a good thing). But since I brought it up...</div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823679">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=823679</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>In fact, you yourself were the first reviewer. I guess I could have emailed you privately, but...</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Nowadays, I consider the review queue as very tiresome. I've commented<br>
on many tickets, I even have made clear behind my name in bugzilla that<br>
I'm in the packager sponsors group, but nobody has taken that as<br>
opportunity to email me privately. The time when new contributors did<br>
that is gone.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>As a potential new contributor, I never felt encouraged to email potential package sponsors privately, as I didn't know any of them. I never felt encouraged to bug a SIG (because while I was packaging a piece of Python software, it was hardly a major piece of software or anything). I wanted to package a piece of software I was considering using for a project, because it wasn't already in the distribution and I liked Fedora enough that I wanted to contribute something upstream. So I followed the procedure(s) on the wiki, or at least I think I did. I reviewed one or two other packages informally.</div><div><br></div><div>I assumed that eventually someone who was a sponsor would review my package and tell me what they thought of it. Then maybe ask me to do a few more things, maybe a few more reviews. Tell me what they thought I needed to work on, etc.</div><div><br></div><div>And, I mean, that eventually did happen. So I guess the system worked. It just took a long time to work.... longer than I would have expected from only reading the documentation on the wiki.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
When somebody has not submitted a single ticket in bugzilla, not even<br>
via ABRT, one can not even be sure the person is using Fedora.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div>So you're saying that reporting bugs against other components in the distribution that aren't necessarily packages is a thing that we are looking for in potential new packagers?</div><div><br></div><div>That seems reasonable. But this is not indicated on the How To Get Sponsored page.</div></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
> Then, once someone *does* notice your package, maybe they work with you on<br>
> improving it, ask you to do a few other things, etc. And it becomes a more<br>
> active process on both sides. At least, that's been my understanding of the<br>
> process based on what I've read in those guidelines.<br>
<br>
</span>That's one way how to do it. Unfortunately, some of the needsponsor people<br>
don't respond. Some respond after months, saying they have been busy. No<br>
notification of that in the ticket. No response! What would happen if the<br>
package were in the distribution? Somebody would start the non-responsive<br>
maintainer procedure.<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That makes sense, so perhaps we should apply apply some analogy of the non-responsive maintainer procedure to new package requests (by unsponsored contributors, anyway), rather than let their tickets sit in bugzilla for forever without comment?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">
> It wouldn't be a bad thing, IMO, to (automatically?) ping sufficiently old<br>
> tickets with a sort of "what's the status on this" and maybe a link to the<br>
> sponsorship guidelines reminding them that there are other things they can<br>
> do if they still want to become a packager.<br>
<br>
</span>It's too tiresome IMO. Pinging is frowned upon in other tickets, too. Just<br>
be responsive, keep track of a single ticket that is important to you<br>
because you need it for the sponsorship process. It is severely<br>
demotivating for reviewers as well as sponsors to get no response to<br>
reviews they post in the tickets. <br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>It's demotivating to packagers, especially new ones, when they get no reviews over reasonably lengthy periods of time too.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyway, I wasn't suggesting we ping more regularly than a year.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
Really, I think you're asking for too much, if you expect all<br>
single-package-review-quest-with-no-activity guys to be sponsored<br>
or to be sponsored quickly.<br>
<div class=""><div class="h5">--<br>
devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:devel@lists.fedoraproject.org">devel@lists.fedoraproject.org</a><br>
<a href="https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br>
Fedora Code of Conduct: <a href="http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct</a></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I thought the point of the sponsorship system was to help mentor potential new contributors until they reached the point where someone thought they were competent enough and sufficiently well-versed in our guidelines. While simultaneously providing a hurdle from preventing just anyone from contributing low-quality packages into the distribution.</div><div><br></div><div>So no, I don't think we should just *sponsor* new contributors instantly or quickly-- I don't want to lower hurdles either. But I also think we shouldn't just let their tickets bit-rot in bugzilla for more than a year without any comment. I don't know what the solution is, necessarily, but it's enough of a problem that someone (else) thought it worth contacting devel@ about.</div><div><br></div><div>Ben Rosser</div></div></div></div>