Where are your past package reviews?

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?classification=Fedora&component=Package%20Review&email1=codonell%40redhat.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&f1=flagtypes.name&list_id=10459522&o1=substring&order=bug_status%2Cchangeddate%20DESC%2Cpriority%2Cassigned_to%2Cbug_id&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&resolution=---&resolution=CURRENTRELEASE&resolution=RAWHIDE&resolution=ERRATA&resolution=NEXTRELEASE&resolution=CANTFIX&v1=fedora-review

I agree, I'd prefer to have at least a few reviews on this list.

Let me go do a review of libdfp packaing :-)

@codonell you are clearly equipped to be a sponsor.

This brings us to the bureaucratic nitpicking ...

I see that you maintain four packages in Fedora, which is more than the required three. I'd note that the packages you do own aren't just the usual run-of-the-mill RPMs.

You've clearly been a packager for more than six months.

You are a little light on official package reviews, but given your work on the packaging guidelines and your background, I will happily use your libdfp review to check this item off the list. :)

Here's my +1, conditional on the libdfp review.

-1 based on the formal requirement. I don't understand why this is bureaucratic nitpicking.

@codonell becoming sponsor just because you want to sponsor two developers...? Do you realize that once you become sponsor people will start to contact you and will be asking you to sponsor them? This is not a one-shot action.

-1 for now, but I will be watching bug 1747552 as it clearly needs guidance. And I would insist on those 5 reviews.

| ... based on the formal requirement

There are not formal requirements, but guidelines - and as the prospective sponsors page says 'These [guidelines] are still somewhat vague to allow for flexibility'. This seems to me to be a case where that flexibility can clearly be invoked.

| [...] just because you want to sponsor two developers...? Do you realize [...]

Please consider your tone. Let's encourage people rather than shoot them down for trying to help out. Starting with two developers, becomes three, four, then ... well, as many as makes sense for Carlos - however many he does, it's all a positive for Fedora IMO.

I've observed Carlos' work for many years, he's a very experienced packager, a calm head and an excellent mentor - I think he'll make a great sponsor, so +1 from me.

I've observed Carlos' work for many years, he's a very experienced packager, a calm head and an excellent mentor - I think he'll make a great sponsor, so +1 from me.

Sure, the idea of this process, however, is that there be evidence for people who have not known or worked with someone personally to also be able to weigh in. That's why the guideline suggests we list the packages we've submitted and reviewed. That is to say that it isn't merely red-tape for the sake of it---it had to be defined in some way and the requirements that are set out are intentionally quite low. So let's take the process in the correct spirit. :)

What @msuchy mentioned is also relevant: the responsibilities of a sponsor are not limited to sponsoring one or two people when the requirement has arisen. Reviews are now de-coupled from sponsorship for this reason. Any packagers can help new-packagers learn skills by helping them with the review tickets and then helping them find a sponsor. So, if the goal here is to get two new package maintainers sponsored, one doesn't really need to be a sponsor themselves.
By becoming a sponsor, one is expected to take on more responsibilities and it takes more time + work: It includes monitoring the sponsored packagers, and other new-comers looking for sponsorship also. Of course, we all pick reviews that interest us---we cannot possibly go through all of them individually.

I'm sure that @codonell is aware of all this and I expect they merely listed an example of who they are looking to sponsor. Please do correct me if I've misread the situation, though.

So I'm +0 at the moment too but heavily leaning towards a +1.

Please consider your tone.

I did not mean to be mean. I am not a native speaker. Sorry if that sounds rude. I just wanted pragmatically point on the responsibilities of sponsors.

Considering the language of the guidelines:

Once packagers have acquired sufficient packaging knowledge to help others through the process, they may apply for sponsor status. As "sufficient knowledge" is unworkably vague, the following guidelines have been established. Prospective sponsors should:

-    Maintain at least three packages.
-    Have done five high quality, nontrivial package reviews.
-    Have been members of the packager group for at least one release cycle (generally six months) so that they have seen the process of branching for a new release.

These are still somewhat vague to allow for flexibility but should provide a reasonable idea of how much experience is required. 

I think Carlos definitely has enough experience to be a package-sponsor. As other's have noted, the 4 packages that Carlos maintains are not run-of-the-mill rpms and have substantial dependencies effecting all of Fedora and the distribution. Similarly, given that Carlos helps maintain the C & C++ packing guidelines themselves, I think he's had more than enough experience with this area of fedora contributions to warrant being a package sponsor.

One only needs to look at how Carlos has behaved in this thread as an example of his attitude as a mentor/sponsor. Only positive remarks and efforts to resolve requests. I can attest Carlos carries this positive and constructive attitude elsewhere too, and I'm sure he will as a package sponsor as well.

Given the nature of the guidelines and that they specifically mention being vague in an effort to convey the intended level of expertise (not necessarily bureaucratic checkboxes); Carlos is a strong +1 for me. It's clear he could help others in learning how to package and adhere to fedora packaging standards.

I feel I could in all confidence review their new package and guide them in the process of contributing a high quality package.

This has been part of the request. May I recommend you do (at least) that first and than we revisit this?

@churchyard:

-1 based on the formal requirement. I don't understand why this is bureaucratic nitpicking.

Why is it not? The point is that a sponsor should know the packaging guidelines well enough to review new packagers' packages and mentor them (teach them the packaging tricks and answer questions) if and when needed. The point is not that a sponsor should be required to fulfill some arbitrary metrics, which only leads to people gaming the system. Knowledge is not directly measurable by simple integer counts.

@msuchy:

Do you realize that once you become sponsor people will start to contact you and will be asking you to sponsor them? This is not a one-shot action.

Once every blue moon maybe. I have not been asked to sponsor anybody for years now. And you are not required to accept the requests either, if you actually do get more of them than you can handle. Just keep in mind to be nice and to reply that you are overworked if that is the case rather than behaving like /dev/null. ;-)

+1 from me, because I dislike "bureaucratic nitpicking" and I think it is clear that @codonell knows what he is doing.

Just to make this clear, I'm not saying @codonell doesn't know what he is doing. I'm saying I don't know what he is doing. Being able to see his reviews would help me understand that.

@kkofler

Once every blue moon maybe.

I was asked by two guys in the past week. :) I can handle it, and I actually enjoy it.

I fully understand and appreciate that as a package sponsor I will be asked to volunteer of my time to sponsor packages. My personal interest and experience has to do with packaging, maintaining, and developing packaging guidelines for the Fedora toolchains (compilers, language runtimes, assemblers, linkers, dynamic linker, and associated packages). Therefore I'm best suited to help with those packages like libdfp, or Steven Munroe's recent pveclib (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1725924, which I was too busy to help with). I expect I would not be as good at reviewing gnome, or kde packages. This position is a volunteer position and I do my best to commit to sponsoring the packages I can while maintaining the quality of the result.

Out of the 4 packages maintained by @codonell , 3 are just different builds of glibc, so I'd count that as only 2 different projects packaged. There are also no reviews by Carlos to be found in bugzilla. In fact, there are no bugs or comments at all under any of his 3 e-mail addresses (carlos at redhat.com, carlos at systemhalted.org and codonell at redhat.com) that I was able to find.

I appreciate his work on the glibc package (years of commits) and his willingness to help new contributors, but I would feel much more confident if he had at least two non-trivial reviews and some bugzilla activity under his belt to show some non-glibc experience.

-1 from me at this time, sorry.

Out of the 4 packages maintained by @codonell , 3 are just different builds of glibc, so I'd count that as only 2 different projects packaged. There are also no reviews by Carlos to be found in bugzilla. In fact, there are no bugs or comments at all under any of his 3 e-mail addresses (carlos at redhat.com, carlos at systemhalted.org and codonell at redhat.com) that I was able to find.
I appreciate his work on the glibc package (years of commits) and his willingness to help new contributors, but I would feel much more confident if he had at least two non-trivial reviews and some bugzilla activity under his belt to show some non-glibc experience.
-1 from me at this time, sorry.

Yes, in practice I maintain only 2 packages in Fedora (the various glibc packages are simply artifacts required for the koji builds).

However, I'm a bit puzzled by your bugzilla results, could you please check those numbers again? I have 467 comments for Fedora bugs in bugzilla spanning +100 components. I have filed 94 of the 467 bugs.

I completely understand the desire to have a good history of package reviews.

However, I'm a bit puzzled by your bugzilla results, could you please check those numbers again? I have 467 comments for Fedora bugs in bugzilla spanning +100 components. I have filed 94 of the 467 bugs.

You can share your BZ query with us, right? :innocent:

However, I'm a bit puzzled by your bugzilla results, could you please check those numbers again? I have 467 comments for Fedora bugs in bugzilla spanning +100 components. I have filed 94 of the 467 bugs.

My apologies if I made the wrong search.

I tried this one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?email1=carlos%40redhat.com&email2=carlos%40systemhalted.org&email3=codonell%40redhat.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailassigned_to2=1&emailassigned_to3=1&emailcc1=1&emailcc2=1&emailcc3=1&emaillongdesc1=1&emaillongdesc2=1&emaillongdesc3=1&emailtype1=substring&emailtype2=substring&emailtype3=substring&list_id=10476141&query_format=advanced
and it gives zero results.

Can you post your search link?

My apologies if I made the wrong search.

That search is not correct.

The "Search by people" entries are logically and'd together, they represent an ever narrowing view of the list of bugs, and since no bug ever meets all the requirements (assigned to 3 different people) you see zero bugs. If you want the logical or'ing of the conditions you must use the "Custom Search" with "Match ANY of the following separately:" selected.

Can you post your search link?

My pleasure.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?classification=Fedora&f1=assigned_to&f2=commenter&f3=cc&f4=assigned_to&f5=commenter&f6=cc&f7=assigned_to&f8=commenter&f9=cc&j_top=OR&list_id=10477916&o1=equals&o2=equals&o3=substring&o4=equals&o5=equals&o6=substring&o7=equals&o8=equals&o9=substring&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced&target_milestone=---&target_release=---&v1=codonell%40redhat.com&v2=codonell%40redhat.com&v3=codonell%40redhat.com&v4=carlos%40redhat.com&v5=carlos%40redhat.com&v6=carlos%40redhat.com&v7=carlos%40systemhalted.org&v8=carlos%40systemhalted.org&v9=carlos%40systemhalted.org

Shows 934 results. This list isn't really all the bugs I've really "worked on", if you limit it to just comments (not CC) then the list is smaller:

Assignee or commenter is 662.

Commenter is 466.

-1

So, it's been 9 days... the tally as I see it is -4/+4, although I am +1 also, so -4/+5, however:

Votes will be collected in the ticket for a week. At the end of that time, if the differential between positive and negative votes stands at +3 or greater, your request will be approved and you'll be promoted to sponsor status immediately, If not, your request will be closed. You may reapply anytime you feel you have more support. 

So, closing now, but do feel free to reapply anytime.