Draft guidelines for approving provenpackager
a.badger at gmail.com
Sat Feb 28 21:31:43 UTC 2009
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Jan 2009 07:47:52 -0800
> Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> wrote:
>> We don't currently have guidelines for granting access to proven
>> packager. I took a work item from FESCo to create a draft for this,
>> and here is my first stab at it (words in camelcase exist to be
>> replaced with links to pages concerning them):
>> Provenpackager is a group of highly skilled package maintainers who
>> are experienced in a wide variety of package types and who are
>> intimately familiar with the PackagingGuidelines and
>> MaintainerPolicies as well as acutely aware of ReleaseSchedules and
>> FreezePolicies. They exist as a group to lend a hand when help is
>> needed, always with a desire to improve the quality of Fedora. By
>> granting membership into provenpackager for a maintainer you are
>> confirming that at least in your mind they meet the above criteria
>> and that you would trust them fully with any of the packages you
>> either maintain or even just use.
> We sort have stalled out on this.
> I think the above is great, but the open question is who applies the
> above guideline to folks requesting membership in provenpackager.
> Robert had a proposal for this, but FESCo didn't like it. ;(
> I would like to propose several possible options and ask for feedback
> on them:
> A) Provenpackager sponsors are set to FESCo members and RELENG members.
> They apply the above guideline and approve people into the group.
> (This would be a smaller pool of people than C below).
> B) Provenpackagers submit a request to FESCo and are voted on in
> meetings and approved by a majority vote. Note that this doesn't scale
> too well if there are a lot of requests.
> C) Provenpackager sponsors are set to the same as Sponsors in the
> packager group. Anyone in that pool can apply the above guideline and
> approve someone into the group.
> Anyone have other proposals or like/dislike any of these?
> We need to get this finished.
I like (B) the best. This is with the idea that the number of
provenpackagers would be similar to the number of sponsors.
If provenpackagers is supposed to be a larger group then (C) seems like
the only one that's going to scale well.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20090228/1c584775/attachment.bin
More information about the devel