Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "KD" == Ken Dreyer <ktdreyer at ktdreyer.com> writes:

KD> Looks good to me. I was unaware that sponsors are (currently) also
KD> provenpackagers. I've considered the idea of becoming a sponsor
KD> myself, but when I read the archived tickets where other people
KD> smarter than me have been denied, the barrier to entry seemed too
KD> high.

Yes, that's the problem I'm trying to address.

KD> Could you expand a bit on what you consider "high-quality,
KD> non-trivial package reviews" ?

As explained in the proposal, that's intentionally left vague.  The idea
is to have the sponsors discuss whether the reviews meet the criteria.
If the authority for elevating packagers to sponsors were delegated to
the sponsors, we could even work out refinements to this ourselves.
Currently it's in the hands of FESCo and to my knowledge there are no
published criteria available.

I know I have my own opinions, which might not be the same as those of
everyone else.  For the record, my opinion would be something close to
"package reviews which are comprehensive, don't miss important packaging
problems and aren't entirely of identical autogenerated Perl modules or
the like".

 - J<