I don't really see a problem with this; it just makes the report a bit longer.

For sponsor purposes it is probably easier to just use https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=ASSIGNED&classification=Fedora&component=Package%20Review&f1=flagtypes.name&f2=blocked&list_id=7863680&o1=equals&o2=substring&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&v1=fedora-review%2B&v2=177841 which is conveniently linked from https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors.

Though of course we ask that people who have approved packages and still need a sponsor actually file a packager-sponsors ticket. That makes certain that things don't fall off the radar.

For sponsor purposes it is probably easier to just use https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=ASSIGNED&classification=Fedora&component=Package%20Review&f1=flagtypes.name&f2=blocked&list_id=7863680&o1=equals&o2=substring&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&v1=fedora-review%2B&v2=177841 which is conveniently linked from https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors.

Ah, I'd overlooked that. May I suggest this be changed to also report bugs in the NEW state?

Though of course we ask that people who have approved packages and still need a sponsor actually file a packager-sponsors ticket.

I suspect that's easy to overlook, because it's not mentioned as a step in the Package Review Process.

I think that changing that query to report bugs in the NEW state would defeat the purpose, since the idea is to find precisely the packages which have completed reviews and are now held up because of sponsorship. The packager sponsors page already has a link (directly above the one I shared) to show all of the tickets which need review and are marked needsponsor.

Early in the review process document is a link to the "how to get sponsored" document which includes the relevant information. Feel free to add that information anywhere you think it is needed.

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. It turns out that reviews are occasionally assigned and completed without the bug having ever transitioned status from NEW to ASSIGNED. These could be caught with https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&classification=Fedora&component=Package%20Review&f1=flagtypes.name&f2=blocked&list_id=9027803&o1=equals&o2=substring&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&v1=fedora-review%2B&v2=177841

So where are we here? Should we apply the first patch? Or did you want to add NEW to it?

Or do we want to try and find a better way to avoid this problem than another search (which requires people to see and use it and then take action)?

Perhaps we could make a fedmsg listener here. When it sees a Package Review + bug, it checks to make sure the submittor is sponsored, if not, it adds a comment to the bug telling them to file a ticket on packager-sponsors to get sponsored first? Or perhaps thats overkill.

So where are we here? Should we apply the first patch?

I'm not a sponsor myself, so it's hard for me to say. If sponsors don't feel it would be helpful to them, then I suppose not.

Or did you want to add NEW to it?

The first patch already included all non-closed bugs.

Or do we want to try and find a better way to avoid this problem than another search (which requires people to see and use it and then take action)?

I’ve removed the wording at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process that said it wasn’t possible to progress without sponsorship, and instead pointed to requesting sponsorship via https://pagure.io/packager-sponsors/. This is probably sufficient to solve the problem I was trying to solve.

ok. Will go ahead and close this out then.

Let us know if there's anything further we can do.

:package: