Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

Jason L Tibbitts III tibbs at
Thu Apr 26 16:37:54 UTC 2012

>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt <mschwendt at> writes:

MS> Are we talking past eachother? :-/

I don't believe so, no.  I do believe that you are reading something
into my proposal that simply is not there, however.

MS> What if sponsors _try_ but for some time haven't found anyone who
MS> shows enough interest in the Fedora Packaging?

I've amended my proposal to the following:

   Sponsors should expect to participate in the review of at least one
   NEEDSPONSOR ticket per year, assuming there are sufficient new
   packagers who require sponsorship and sufficient packages within the
   realm of expertise of the sponsor to fulfill this requirement.

Although that isn't the cleanest of constructions, ugh.

MS> What if there are sponsors with expertise in special areas, who are
MS> available to help'n'sponsor other contributors in such areas only?

That was intended to be covered by the "assuming there are
sufficient..." language in the proposal.  I have revised it as above
since it obviously wasn't clear to all.

MS> What do you gain by removing sponsors so violently?

Firstly, I must state that I believe your definition of "violence" must
differ significantly from mine.  I do not believe I have mentioned any
type of "physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill someone or
something" or "strength of emotion or an unpleasant or destructive or
natural force".  I sincerely hope I'm not just being trolled here,
because I've put a lot of effort into this and I chose my words

Now, I do request that you re-read my proposal.  There is one instance
of language involving loss of sponsorship:

  Loss of sponsorship is automatic if the account goes inactive or is
  disabled (in FAS terminology).  It can always be requested again.

I don't see what value there is in keeping sponsorship status on
accounts which have been marked inactive.  Those accounts have no access
to any Fedora infrastructure in any case.  Why should they show up in
any list of prospective sponsors?
MS> For me it would be like slamming a door into my face, and I would
MS> likely discontinue spending time on visiting bookmarked pages like
MS> and
MS> the normal review request queue.

I'm really not seeing the need for the drama here.

MS> Sponsors can leave the group in FAS themselves.

Of course they can.  Perhaps if my proposal is accepted you can submit
your very reasonable proposal for how sponsors leave the group.  I've
rather intentionally left it out of my proposal because I've wanted to
avoid just this type of discussion.

 - J<

More information about the devel mailing list