Fedora clean up process seems to be seriously broken...

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 14:30:47 -0600, RS (Richard) wrote:

> How does someone who needs to be sponsored make sure that their
> informal reviews get noticed? Not everyone will 'toot their own horn'
> so to speak. That doesn't mean they are not a good prospect as a
> packager.

Similar answer as before. The person is on the NEEDSPONSOR list, the
person's email address is known, a sponsor who runs into the package
review request can query bugzilla to learn a bit about the potential
sponsoree's activity _in bugzilla_. Sometimes I ask package submitters to
enter their full name in bugzilla, because they haven't done so, and it's
not found in the email address and the spec %changelog either. Sometimes
a person has not opened a single ticket in bugzilla before.

> I think it's difficult sometimes for "you oldtimers" to place yourself
> in the shoes of a newcomer. 

How many packager sponsors are there? Have we reached 100 already?
Certainly not all of them are "oldtimers".

> The whole process can be quite intimidating, 

The same can be said about the other side of the fence. As a sponsor,
how do you get to know package submitters, who open a review request
and then sit and wait silently? How do you know whether you can trust
them? (also with regard to not leaving the project early)

Surely some communication needs to take place. Either in bugzilla
or "behind the scenes".

> especially when someone of apparent authority gets short
> with you because of your lack of understanding of the guidelines or
> other mistake. I've made plenty of (honest) mistakes in the past and
> have sometimes been corrected in ways that were not helpful to say the
> least, it's a good thing I wasn't easily deterred, but that's heading
> off topic.

Can't comment on that in general. It would need specific examples. I've
met package submitters, who just didn't want to accept the guidelines and
preferred to argue about them (or even argued about what should be
considered "common sense").

> I'm just trying to think of a way to help alleviate (I don't think
> solving the problem is practical) the vicious cycle of too many
> packages (and potential packagers) chasing too few sponsors. 

If they were "chasing" the sponsors, there would be less of a problem.
Many wait a lot of time, and when they receive comments on their package,
they take even more time to respond. I don't defend the process as it is,
but it isn't as bad as it seems. And there are more than 1000 members in
the packager group, so that's more than 1000 people who could review
and approve a package occasionally.

> OR the
> other side of the problem, current maintainers not being able to be
> responsive because they have too many packages.

That's something different, IMO. I don't think on the NEEDSPONSOR list
are a dozen people who want to co-maintain Pulse Audio. ;)