I really want FESCo to clarify on sponsorship criteria. Why is it happening that some Red Hat employee Packager Sponsor, Sponsor people directly without looking into processes and not following them? The package review queue is increasing and we really need new people getting sponsored into packager to review some packages from that queue.
I want to propose to explicitly add the text that Sponsorship from Red Hat employee to other Red Hat employee is not needed to follow this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Convincing_someone_to_sponsor_you process.
We have not provided any criteria of how many new packages or package reviews to be done by sponsoree which is okay but is asking 3 package reviews is too much work for Red Hat employees? Also Sponsor should respect existing bug process.
The review that makes me to bring this ticket is this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1343814
There has never been a hard requirement on new packagers having to do N reviews before being sponsored.
Some sponsors wish people to do that so they can demonstrate that they know the guidelines and to help get more reviews done, but others have no such requirement.
From that same page we have:
"Depending on the sponsor and how much time they have to spend with you, they may require that you demonstrate that you have the knowledge to maintain Fedora packages properly (including an understanding of the Fedora packaging guidelines) or they may be willing to take you on if you just show that you are eager and willing to learn those things from them."
IMHO, it's nice when people are able and willing to do reviews to show their understanding, but there's a number of cases where I don't think thats the best course, for example:
When someone is upstream for a package and they want to help maintain it, but have no interest in other fedora packages.
When a sponsor knows that the person knows packaging based on previous history.
Some people learn best by maintaining. After some time maintaining packages they might well be better reviewers.
It would be nice to get more reviews moving along, but making this a requirement I don't think is the right way to do it.
Replying to [comment:1 kevin]:
There has never been a hard requirement on new packagers having to do N reviews before being sponsored. Some sponsors wish people to do that so they can demonstrate that they know the guidelines and to help get more reviews done, but others have no such requirement. From that same page we have: "Depending on the sponsor and how much time they have to spend with you, they may require that you demonstrate that you have the knowledge to maintain Fedora packages properly (including an understanding of the Fedora packaging guidelines) or they may be willing to take you on if you just show that you are eager and willing to learn those things from them." IMHO, it's nice when people are able and willing to do reviews to show their understanding, but there's a number of cases where I don't think thats the best course, for example: When someone is upstream for a package and they want to help maintain it, but have no interest in other fedora packages. When a sponsor knows that the person knows packaging based on previous history. Some people learn best by maintaining. After some time maintaining packages they might well be better reviewers. It would be nice to get more reviews moving along, but making this a requirement I don't think is the right way to do it.
This is informative and should be added on that page or we can create a new page that lists these cases. Can we add such different scenarios as part of policy? If this information is not part of Sponsorship policy then to me it do not exists.
I think adding these cases is useful for the Sponsor people which can act as guidelines for them when deciding on sponsoring someone.
For context, I am the "some Red Hat Employee Packager Sponsor" that is being referred to in this ticket. Though, given that my longevity with the Fedora Project extends many years before my time of employment at Red Hat, I had hoped that wouldn't define me. Apparently it does now. This is fine.
There were a couple of instances where I worked with people on irc or in person to become packagers and I didn't properly document the process in Bugzilla or otherwise for posterity. That was my fault and I'll gladly own that mistake. I would like to note though that it was situational oversight and not ill intent. There was no grand agenda to skirt the Fedora Process (I'm note entirely sure I did anyways) and it was just circumstantial that the people from the Fedora community who had requested me to sponsor them happened to be Red Hat employees, I've sponsored non-Hatters and Hatters alike in the past and will continue to do so in the future. What effectively happens is that I'll be working either on irc or in person (at a conference or FAD) with someone who would like to be sponsored, and I am able to check the packaging work of the individual who was applying for sponsorship via these interactions. I will admit this should be more well documented for posterity and transparency and I will try to do better in the future.
-AdamM
I hate bare +1s, but I can't write anything better than Kevin did. So +1.
Please note my only intention (though given a specific bug example in the description) is to find some way to have the FE-NEEDSPONSOR queue keep moving and the ticket count to go down from the current 111 count. If we can get more relaxed policy, Sponsor can use it and new packagers do not need to wait for years to get sponsored.
I have found few people got sponsored based on one package submission only but few other who have submitted more than one package or with that attempted some reviews did not get sponsor at all. I too have some limitations to my daily work and cannot work on whole FE-NEEDSPONSOR queue.
From last meeting discussion, * ACCEPTED: add new section to how to get sponsored page that notes that sponsors can choose to sponsor for any reason, etc (8:+ 0:-0:0) (dgilmore, 16:59:09)
Thanks Kevin for adding this https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Other_paths section.
Login to comment on this ticket.