Voting for packages waiting on FE-NEEDSPONSOR state

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Sat, 24 Mar 2012 06:44:05 +0200
Alek Paunov <alex at declera.com> wrote:

> On 20.03.2012 20:30, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 03:12:37 +0200
> > Alek Paunov<alex at declera.com>  wrote:
> >
> >> Which is the proper way to vote and describe potential benefits of
> >> a new package, with candidate maintainer who needs sponsorship.
> >
> > Voting for what?
> 
> For the package. As a Fedora user (not a packager at the time being)
> I would be happy to see number of projects (whose upstream
> development I closely follow) as a Fedora packages, but don't know
> how/where to express this and how to share my humble points about the
> potential benefits to the Distribution if we have them.

Well, you could add comments to the bug or post to the devel list about
how a package would improve the distribution, but there's nothing
like voting. If people who are sponsors feel the package is important
they will review it and sponsor the submitter. ;) 

> > Maintainers that need sponsorship have to use one of the methods on:
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group
> >
> > Basically you need to convince a sponsor that you are trustworthy
> > and ready to be sponsored.
> 
> What happens when the candidate maintainer has done the packaging
> task fairly well ([1] as instance), but obviously is not active
> enough in the sponsor seeking? Which is the mechanism to "unstuck"
> the important packages from this state?

As mentioned, you could try extolling the virtues of the package in a
post to the devel list and see if anyone is able to review/sponsor. 

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20120324/2722effa/attachment.sig>