rdieter at math.unl.edu
Sun Jul 12 13:58:37 UTC 2015
Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jul 2015 14:31:52 +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
>> Today I happened to look at this page:
>> from which I can see we have potentially on the order of 100 new
>> potential contributors to Fedora whose efforts we're missing out on
>> due to a lack of sponsors. Some people seem to have been waiting to be
>> sponsored for a couple of years. This is quite an unfortunate
>> situation - what can we do to improve that situation? How many
>> *active* packaging sponsors do we currently have?
> How many *active* NEEDSPONSOR contributors do we have?
> There are many in the queue, who submit a single package with lots of
> mistakes -- or the package not building at all -- and slow response
> times in bugzilla, or no response, and who don't follow the How To Get
> Sponsored guidelines either.
I like to think of being a sponsor as an exciting opportunity to shepherd
new contributors to fedora.
Taking the attitude of "It's too hard... (mostly) because it will be a lot
of work to turn them into good packagers", is... less than constructive
here, imo. My blunt suggestion: if that bothers you, then help clean out
Further, I think it's more than just a sponsor shortage, but a *reviewer*
shortage too. If only all packagers would strive to do at least as many
reviews as packages they've submitted, I think we wouldn't be having this
conversation. Hrm, an interesting metric I'd love to see: for all
packagers, calculate ratio of pkg-reviews / pkg-submissions-approved, and
give big kudos to anyone near 1 or higher (probably with some minimal
numbers to be fair here, ie for anyone with pkg-reviews and/or pkg-
submissions greater than, say, 5)
p.s. Heck, for the amount of effort put into this thread so far, I'd venture
at least another few reviews could have been done
More information about the devel