Quick proposal for making packager sponsorship slightly easier

[Jason L Tibbitts III]

>>>>> "H" == Haïkel  <hguemar at fedoraproject.org> writes:

H> It's all the more important then to formalize requirements from new
H> packagers like having done two quality reviews and link them back to
H> their first package tickets.

That's sort of an orthogonal issues, but honestly I don't believe
anything should be required of a packager besides the proper maintenance
of a single high-quality package.  That's all many contributors,
particularly upstreams, care about.  And we want those contributors
too (quite a bit, I'd think).

If the community says a package submission is good, and a sponsor is
willing to make themselves available as to help the packager through the
process of getting the package onto end user machines and providing
direct support (in addition to the community which should always be
there for assistance) then I don't see what else we should make a
packager do.  The practice of demanding practice reviews is just
something that some sponsors would like to see, but it's never been a
hard requirement.  And it would be really unfortunate if it was, because
nothing like that is required for sponsorship via the comaintainer
route.

H> Though the main bottleneck is time to properly mentor new packagers.

I find that I have time to do that while not having time to actually do
package reviews.  I do really thorough reviews and they take a while.

 - J<