when somebody whishes to become a Fedora a packager
because they want to start to maintain a package that is orphaned,
they should submit a the package for review
and follow the usual sponsorship process for new packages.

My understanding is that this is not true. There are multiple avenues to getting sponsored, and only some of them require a package review.

For packages that are orphaned orphaned or retired, the usual rule applies: if orphanedorphaned or retired less no more than 8 weeks, it can be unorphaned/unretired immediately, otherwise a re-review is needed.

More generally, it could be a good idea to lift the policy-like parts of the Package Maintainer Docs page How to Get Sponsored to a FESCo policy

I fully agree. I think the move is less important than the cleanup we'd need to do at the same time. I'm sure that the policy could be written in a much clearer way.

EDIT: edited to fix the confusion between orphan and retired.

Please, do not conflate orphaned / retired. This already leads to so much confusion.

Package reviews for orphaned packages are not necessary, just pushing the "Take" button.
Package reviews for retired packages are not necessary if they have been retired for less than 8 weeks, but required if they have been retired for longer than that.

I think the post on devel wanted to express that it's hard for someone to get sponsored just on the basis of wanting to unorphan (not unretire!) a package, because sponsors can not vouch for their packaging knowledge beforehand, as this avenue does not require package reviews. Hence, the idea for doing an (unnecessary) package review for an orphaned package in this case.

To make it 100% clear:

Does unorphaing require a package review when done by a new packager?

No, it does not.

Well, whats the alternative here?

If you want to take over maint of a orphaned package and are not a packager you... what? file a packager-sponsors ticket? How can sponsors get enough info there to know if they should sponsor someone to take over a orphaned package.

If we require a review at least the package will be updated to the latest version, we will see the prospective maintainer knows how to make the orphaned package work again if it was broken, etc.

It might be an alternative in such cases. But if I understand correctly, that is not the question that is asked here:

Does unorphaing require a package review when done by a new packager?

It does not require it.

Well, whats the alternative here?

Whether an unnecessary re-review might be a valid avenue to get sponsored to fix the package before it gets retired ... that is an entirely different question than the one posed in this ticket.

For a package that is not yet retired, I think a Pull Request to fix the original issue would be more productive than an unnecessary re-review ...

It might be an alternative in such cases. But if I understand correctly, that is not the question that is asked here:

Does unorphaing require a package review when done by a new packager?

It does not require it.

ok. Perhaps I am misremembering that being added. I thought it was the case.

Well, whats the alternative here?

Whether an unnecessary re-review might be a valid avenue to get sponsored to fix the package before it gets retired ... that is an entirely different question than the one posed in this ticket.

For a package that is not yet retired, I think a Pull Request to fix the original issue would be more productive than an unnecessary re-review ...

Sure, thats an alternative, although no one will see that except possibly any co-maintainers that didn't take primary maintainership of the package.

Can we agree that filing a packager-sponsor ticket is at least not the right way to do it?

More generally, it could be a good idea to lift the policy-like parts of the Package Maintainer Docs page How to Get Sponsored to a FESCo policy

I fully agree. I think the move is less important than the cleanup we'd need to do at the same time. I'm sure that the policy could be written in a much clearer way.

I have started doing this here: fork/oturpe/fesco/fesco-docs, branch packager-sponsor-policy.
I will create a pull request when I have something ready.
I am using the same rules that are currently written in the How to Get Sponsored page,
because that is the best source available at the moment.
You (FESCo) have to decide if something should be changed.

Pull request for the FESCo policy: fesco-docs/pull-request/59.

What is the status of this? I've lost track, sorry about that.

What is the status of this? I've lost track, sorry about that.

As I understand the discussion, my original question has an answer, which is "no".
Follow up is the fesco-docs pull request linked above,
which already has some reviews, including a very thorough one by @zbyszek.
From my point of view, it is ready to merge.
Scope of that pull request has expanded to a more comprehesive update of the Sponsor Policy.
I can close this issue and open another one,
titled "Update Sponsorship Policy" or such,
if that helps with tracking and resolving my proposals and questions.

Yeah, I think we just need fesco to approve the final changes. I am +1.

+1 too (I voted in the pull request previously, but I think we should vote here.)

FESCo members, let's get this wrapped up. Please vote here.

After two weeks, the vote is (+2,0,-0) and hence APPROVED.

Announced in https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/KCJCEQMHITAQUW4SMWU3AXIPZ65GSDSU/

Since this has been approved, could somebody with commit rights to fesco-docs go and merge the pull request?

Done

Done.

Thanks, @oturpe!