Moving this over from the FESCo trac where it was originally filed. Original text:
= Description =
I'd like to nominate myself to be a packager group sponsor
= Reason =
I've been maintaining RPMs for the Fedora Project for over a year. In addition to helping out with reviews, I'm the primary maintainer for about a half-dozen packages, and I co-maintain almost two dozen more.
I maintain several RPMs at my work, and I'm active within the EPEL SIG (as well as RPM Fusion, for what that's worth). I've co-maintained-to-proxy-sponsor two folks already #741 and #831). Given the new sponsorship model that FESCo recently passed, I'd like to become a full-fledged sponsor at this point. My first sponsoree would be https://bugzilla.redhat.com/634760
Seems I may not have had mail notification set correctly, so the ticket creation email didn't go out. Let's see if I got it right this time.
A search finds four reviews, three complete and one in progress, though I wonder if I'm missing some.
And 22 packages owned or comaintained:
To reiterate the guidelines for becoming a sponsor:
* Five high-quality package reviews
* Three packages maintained
* Packager for at least one release cycle
All existing sponsors are welcome to vote. We'll collect votes in this ticket for a week and if there's a +3 vote differential at the end of that period then this request will be approved.
Thanks Jason. Here are links to two other informal reviews I did before I was sponsored as a packager:
sams - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/664390
RPM Fusion reviews probably don't count, but here they are anyway :)
im +1 to ktdreyer being a sponsor
+1 from me.
+1 here as well.
From a sponsor I expect not only formal reviews but guidance, hints how to improve a package and explanations. The [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634760 amavisd-milter] for example still has a lot of potential for improvement. (systemd unit file, %global and %define are mixed, timestamps are not preserved during %install etc).
It's not that I don't want Ken to become a sponsor, but I think it's just too early and I would like to see more from him first.
Hi Christoph, thanks for the suggestions. I added a point out the %define/%global difference, along with the need to preserve timestamps.
I had suggested a systemd unit file earlier, but I didn't think it should block the review until the the FPC formally adds that requirement to the Package Acceptance criteria. From what I can tell on the wiki, this is still a draft?
Well, it's been a week and I now have the privileges necessary to actually carry out promotions, so:
I count five +1 votes and one -1 vote, giving a vote differential of +4 which exceeds the required threshold. I have upgraded ktdreyer's status to sponsor.
Thanks to all who voted!
And one final note:
Thanks to ktdreyer for stepping up and congratulations on your new status. Please don't forget to make yourself comaintainer of at least the initial packages of those you sponsor for long enough to ensure that everything's going OK.
to comment on this ticket.
Copyright © 2014-2017 Red Hat