[fab] agenda for tomorrow

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 5 Jun 2006 20:27:48 -0400 (EDT), Max Spevack wrote:

> >> * Extras sponsorship
> >>  	- Is this process smooth?  I heard some grumblings at the Summit
> >>  	- What do we need to fix?
> >
> > For those of use that weren't at the Summit, could you expand on what
> > these grumblings were please?
> 
> Just that people can't get their packages sponsored, and things sit for a 
> long time without any sort of review (either acceptance or rejection).

That's only one chapter of the book. Further chapters are about

 - reviewers, who wait a long time for submitters to report back,

 - packages, which are not ready or which improve only slowly and which
need a lot of work before a sponsor would feel good about approving them,

 - fire'n'forget packages, which are pushed into Extras rather quickly,
but end up as orphans even more quickly, because the packager abandons
them without notice,

 - sponsors, who need some time to get to know unsponsorted contributors
before they would be willing to sponsor them,

 - the post-approval phase, where prematurely sponsored contributors
need much more guidance/help/education/monitoring than expected,

 - blanket approvals, rushed reviews.

Grumblings, grumblings, ... it ought to be FESCO who is contacted first
about this and about specific package review requests--where are the
examples? Not this general backdoor lobbyism again, please. Really! It's
not just that the review process is the one big hurdle to take. It's the
varying commitment and cooperation of contributors, some of which take
part in the review process only reluctantly because they disagree with
many of the packaging guidelines and policies. We have quite some
experience with new contributors who spend less energy on bringing in
shape their packages than on criticising the process and policies.

> To some extent I agree with the logic of "the best packages will always 
> find sponsors and bubble up", but I question whether or not that process 
> is happening as quickly as it could, and if we're failing to capitalize on 
> the skills/motivation of people who are good, only because we don't 
> *realize* that they are good in a reasonable amount of time.
> 
> FESCO folks on this list: are there issues here?  what, if anything needs 
> to be done?

I'd rather like to see some higher-level decision about "libtool archives,
yes or no?". That is something, which affects Core and Extras and cannot
be solved by FESCO alone.