#839 Proposal for revitalizing the packager sponsorship model
Closed None Opened 11 years ago by tibbs.

Kind of depressed that the list of NEEDSPONSOR tickets is as large as ever (if not larger) I spent some time working up a proposal for changing things up in a way that I think will improve the situation.

Executive summary: engage the body of sponsors by delegating some things currently done by FESCo. Give the sponsors better infrastructure for organizing. Establish criteria for packagers to become sponsors and make those criteria simple to meet. Stop making sponsors provenpackagers so we don't have to worry about giving them so much access. Establish responsibilities for sponsors.

Living draft proposal: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RevitalizingSponsorshipProposal

Note that I'm not asking for a vote, but discussion would be much appreciated. I will be posting to devel@ as soon as I get a few more things firmed up.


Adding meeting keyword.

Agreed that this should be discussed on devel@ and brought back up once there's more developer input

Revised the document a bit (no really huge changes but I did flesh out a couple of things a bit more) and posted it to devel@: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2012-April/166395.html

FWIW I think this is a great proposal, and I'd like to become a sponsor if this is passed.

It appears that the mailing list thread has derailed completely and the useful discussion has run its course. I have made some minor fixes based on list discussion, though I do not expect to be able to appease the usual suspects. Especially since much of the objection appears to be to things which are not part of my proposal.

I welcome any constructive criticism as always.

I heard that a one new packager is sponsored almost everyday. I'm not a sponsor, could someone clarify? I don't think it's a bad number.

Also with revitalizing of the sponsor, which we are probably doing because of slow sponsoring, we should fix unresponsive packagers. I saw tickets where was uploaded srpm, but the packager never replied on comments or reply after few months. Such reviews are stalled in bugzilla forever and they are blocking packaging of the package.

Otherwise I like the idea, but I'm little concerned about those who are sponsors for a specific group. It might be possible that they group didn't have any new packagers. For example member of a project want guide newcomers, but there are no other members of group in last year.

With only a bit less than 1200 packagers currently (and us having never trimmed anyone from the group as far as I know), one new one per day seems a bit optimistic.

Fixing unresponsive packagers was not within the scope of my proposal.

Regarding those who are sponsors for a specific group, I'm not sure what your concern might be. I have specific language in the proposal to cover the issue that there may not be any new packagers who have submitted anything new within their area of expertise. Do you believe that is insufficient? The document doesn't state what happens if sponsors don't actually do anything in any case, just what is expected of them. Of course the sponsors could get together and decide to do something like that in the future, but it's not something I've attempted to cover in my proposal.

Some quick data:

16 packagers sponsored so far this month.
Mar: 18
Feb: 24
Jan: 13
Dec: 10
Nov: 21
Oct: 16
Sep: 14
Aug: 13
Jul: 17
Jun: 19
May: 14
Apr: 15

Average per month for past 12 full months: 16.17, 0.53 per day.

Whether this seems to be a large number or not is up to personal believe, I suppose, but the fact remains that there are still 120+ people awaiting sponsorship, many of whom have been waiting for some time.

Approved at the 2012-05-07 FESCo meeting:
AGREED: Proposal for revitalizing the packager sponsorship model is accepted (+:8, -:0 0:0) (notting, 17:10:09)

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata