Proposal for revitalizing the sponsorship process for packaging

[Michael Schwendt]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:37:54 -0500, JLTI (Jason) wrote:

> 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". 

Which is not the only meaning of "violent". According to what I've
learnt it is used also related to "temper" or "controversy", for instance.

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

Your proposal contains

| Make some criteria that sponsors need to meet
| if they wish to remain sponsors. 

plus:

| Sponsors should expect to participate in the review of at least one
| NEEDSPONSOR ticket per year [...] to fulfill this requirement.

That's the other "non-automatic" loss of sponsor status, isn't it?
It could be a sponsor, who's been busy reviewing and approving other
packages.

I did not say I fear I wouldn't meet this requirement. Still, why do
you consider it necessary to put pressure on existing sponsors? A comment
on a NEEDSPONSOR ticket just to meet some criteria may be less productive
and less helpful than comments on other review requests, where a packager
would be thankful for the comments.

> 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> http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html and
> MS> the normal review request queue.
> 
> I'm really not seeing the need for the drama here.

Then let me expand on this as it doesn't become drama just because you
name it so. Another bookmarked page is this one:
  http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html
When I visit it, I don't pay attention to the colour and whether it's
a needsponsor's package that raises my interest or an existing
packager's ticket. It happens regularly, however, that I click on
a green package only to find it is being worked on by me or somebody
else, but is waiting for a reply for a longer time. Then I move on.
Why force sponsors to hunt for other tickets just to meet some
requirement? If I worked on a needsponsor review of a terminal based
dungeon adventure game, would that be considered more valueable than
leaving comments in arbitrary review requests? I've thought we need
more reviewer and not less.

-- 
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.2-8.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 0.00 0.01 0.05