Hello, I would like to be able to sponsor packagers.
I've reviewed shim (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838608), lasso (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1034387), runc (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179), golang-github-opencontainers-specs (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255370), and am working on oci-register-machine (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282903 and skopeo (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301143).
I'm the point of contact for certmonger, hesiod, hmaccalc, oddjob, and a comaintainer for krb5 and a few other things (though I haven't had to touch most of them for some time): https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/nalin/
Although you have done 4 reviews. They should be non-trivial; at least a few of there are quite old already, the guides says, you should have done at least 5 non-trivial reviews.
Looking more at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1255179 the package was proposed by someone else than and it was continued in the same ticket. Usually, this is discouraged.
How do I understand this your remark in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1301143#c15 ? -> runcom is not currently in the packagers group; I can sponsor.
At least opencontainers-specs surely counts as non-trivial.
In total, I'd tend more to -1 here. Please keep up your recent work and come back, when you have done more recent reviews.
Replying to [comment:1 mrunge]:
I thought I could sponsor him, so I took FE-NEEDSPONSOR off of its blocker list. I'll have to add it back if I can't find someone to take that on.
Strong -1 please come back again when you'll have done more reviews.
why? 1. requirements are not fulfilled 2. looks like an attempt to shunt Fedora's sponsoring process to add more packagers without properly sponsoring them. Mattias mentioned runcom, but it's the same for sallyom in RHBZ#1282903. There's also no trace that both of them were looking actively for a sponsor, nor that they did informal reviews usually requested from new packagers. 3. as a sponsor, you're required to supervise new packagers first steps and teach them guidelines, process and best practices. I could have ignored requirements if there are any hints that you'd be a good sponsor but little activity in m-l, no good advices given to new packagers on how to get sponsored (like doing informal reviews), many mistakes in the process.
Being a sponsor is more than just adding random people into the packager group.
As an example, in tickets #232 and #251, more experienced people were also not granted their sponsor status requests.
-1, same reasoning as hguemar.
-1 and I am agree with what said in comment 1 and 3.
Please re-apply anytime you feel you have more support.
Login to comment on this ticket.