I'd like to formally request review to becoming a packager sponsor.
I've been a packager since July 14 2022 (my sponsored package: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=2106939)
In that time I have: - built 26 new packages that passed reviews and were subsequently added to Fedora/EPEL. - completed 15 reviews for other packagers across multiple languages - been added to the certbot SIG and published several updates to it - been added to the EPEL SIG - taken ownership of multiple orphaned packages and got them back on track - been a member of the packager group for the entire F37 release cycle
To save folks some time:
My new packages: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__closed__&bug_status=__open__&columnlist=product%2Ccomponent%2Cassigned_to%2Cstatus%2Csummary%2Clast_change_time%2Cseverity%2Cpriority&component=Package%20Review&email1=jonathan%40almalinux.org&emailreporter1=1&emailtype1=equals&list_id=13010954&order=priority%2C%20severity%2C%20&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced
My reviews: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=__open__&bug_status=__closed__&columnlist=product%2Ccomponent%2Cassigned_to%2Cstatus%2Csummary%2Clast_change_time%2Cseverity%2Cpriority&component=Package%20Review&email1=jonathan%40almalinux.org&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=equals&list_id=13010957&order=priority%2C%20severity%2C%20&product=Fedora&query_format=advanced
While the work is impressive, we have one rule in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#who_sponsors_the_sponsors
The rule is: Have been members of the packager group for at least one release cycle so that they have seen the process of branching for a new release.
While you technically have seen the branching process. It has not been 6 months since you become packager. Therefore I am for -1, but I hope you will really in the second half of January. Then I will definitely vote for you.
While the list of your package reviews contains lots of trivial reviews (which does not count) I made the list of non-trivial review to ease others the review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121595 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2121593 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2117772 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2107818 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2116217
While the work is impressive, we have one rule in https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Packager_sponsor_policy/#who_sponsors_the_sponsors The rule is: Have been members of the packager group for at least one release cycle so that they have seen the process of branching for a new release. While you technically have seen the branching process. It has not been 6 months since you become packager. Therefore I am for -1, but I hope you will really in the second half of January. Then I will definitely vote for you.
I was under the impression the release cycle was the important part, and the "(generally 6 months)" part at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Sponsor_a_New_Contributor/#becoming_a_fedora_package_collection_sponsor was only in reference to how long release cycles generally are.
The doc you linked and the one I linked seem to slightly conflict on the time implication.
It's been a few more months. Would anyone care to vote now or @jonathanspw would you care to add anything or resubmit later?
+1 from me.
I'd like to proceed. I was waiting until the 14th to bump this since it's technically the 6 month mark.
I'm currently working on what I think is a non-trivial review in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2157646 for whatever that's worth.
Would love for everyone to vote :)
+1 from me
+1
I've worked with @jonathanspw with the certbot packages
I am +1 to this request.
+1 from me now
I see now +11 and no -1s, so this is accepted. ;)
Use your powers wisely!
Metadata Update from @kevin: - Issue close_status updated to: accepted - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Log in to comment on this ticket.