-1 I think, she is not ready to be granted provenpacker privileges, because most of the works she co-maintains participated in Fedora are not her own genuine work.

I abstain from voting here, even if I wish Jitka could have been provenpackager and do annual rebuild of Perl instead of me or Petr.

I guess Ralf accusation came from her commits, which I applied with her name in changelog previous year, for example: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/perl-devel/2012-August/056429.html At first I applied her patches with her name in changelog, with -s as signed-off from me, because I thought it would be enough to signed-off in git.

I hired her as my replacement as Perl maintainer and I will reassign all my Perl packages to her. The provenpackager is still needed, because annual rebuild of Perl touches many packages and waiting for maintainers is not always possible because the period for development is quite short.

In short: +1 from me

Looking at my own provenpackager ticket from 2 years ago, I guess we'd be comparable. I was primary maintainer for more packages but I wasn't comaintaining nearly close to jplesnik's number of packages. Due to koji being extremely slow I wasn't able to get a list of unique package builds that jplesnik has done in past 10 months, but there are 150+ builds done by her.

Sure would be nice if she had more varied experience, but for example https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/989 was successfully approved and person had only 1 review and 18 maintained packages. It was approved because Petr Machata asked for provenpackager so that he could do boost rebuilds. Similar thing seems to apply here: Jitka is doing the perl rebuilds.

+1 from me as well as I agree with Stano.

Given the presence of a -1, moving to a meeting item.

From 2013-04-24 FESCo meeting:
#1108 Provenpackager request - jplesnik (sgallagh, 18:09:10)

AGREED: grant provenpackager status to jplesnik (sgallagh, 18:14:39)

notting added jplesnik to the provenpackager group: 2013-04-24 11:46:15 PDT.

Closing ticket.