Draft guidelines for approving provenpackager

[Toshio Kuratomi]

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.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20090228/1c584775/attachment.bin