Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

[Brian Pepple]

On Wed, 2009-01-28 at 20:07 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> 2009/1/28 Brian Pepple :
> >
> > He was approved as a provenpackager, not as a sponsor.
> >
> 
> I really don't want to point fingers on anyone, but how can someone
> who completed only 3 reviews (one of them is what you are talking
> about above) become a provenpackager? IMHO there is clearly a chain of
> people-not-doing-their-job-properly on this. I did 40+ reviews but I
> can't still consider myself good enough to apply for
> provenpackagership. I still ask for help at certain occasions. There
> are so many bits and pieces in doing reviews that I don't think one
> can possibly learn most of them in just 3 reviews.
> 
> An explanation would be nice.

This is all a moot point now though, since a couple of weeks ago FESCo
approved a proposal to reset the initial seeding of the provenpackager
group with Packaging Sponsors, and Jesse has made a proposal(1) on
guidelines for approving someone to the provenpackager group.

     1. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2009-January/msg01573.html

Later,
/B
-- 
Brian Pepple <bpepple at fedoraproject.org>

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Bpepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B  CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20090128/5dd5e133/attachment.bin