#70 I want to join the packager-sponsors
Closed: Fixed None Opened 10 years ago by besser82.

Hello to all of you!

[http://goo.gl/JmnHv Here] is list of the reviews I've done. [http://goo.gl/nVhNl These] are my maintained packages.

I would like to sponsor the following candidates, at the moment:

Cheers,[[BR]]
Björn


Hi Björn,

according to FAS you've been a member of the packager group for about a month. Is that correct? One of the [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor prerequisites for potential sponsors] is to
"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".
I'm not sure if this is absolutely necessary, but a few more months of experience including to maintain packages for different Fedora releases might be useful.
However, I'd like to get some more opinions from sponsors about this topic. I also should have a deeper look at your reviews to be able to cast a fair vote.

Martin

Hi Martin!

Replying to [comment:1 mgieseki]:

according to FAS you've been a member of the packager group for about a month. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct so far.

I'm not sure if this is absolutely necessary, but a few more months of experience including to maintain packages for different Fedora releases might be useful.

I have seen the process of branching and maintaining devel / stable / oldstable on openSuse a few times. I know that I should not blindly merge down RAWHIDE to F[0-9]*-Release. That in most cases will break something depending. Cherry-picking patches is the better approach to fix-up bugs, mostly.

However, I'd like to get some more opinions from sponsors about this topic. I also should have a deeper look at your reviews to be able to cast a fair vote.

Thanks a lot for being this fair instead of simply down-voting.

Cheers,
Björn

A +1 for Björn, he did a great job in reviewing our the dependent packages for hadoop.

A +1 from me, too. Björn has been easy to work with, is responsive, and just today even has noticed embarrassing mistakes in an approved package, where both the submitter and the reviewer (a sponsor) ought to have noticed them during review. Waiting several months in the packager group doesn't necessarily result in a gain of experience.

I have seen a lot of activities from Björn reviewing patches, including the one that mschwendt pointed. Mistakes might happen (we are human begins after all) and step forward to help was nice. +1 from my side as well.

Björn's recent reviews look good indeed, and he pleasantly worked together with the packagers to get everything in good shape. Thus, +1 from me too.

Being a sponsor is about being a mentor to other packagers. They are supposed to be the trainers of future packagers. As such, the sponsor needs to be somewhat knowledgable about all things that a packager does in Fedora. I believe the one-release-cycle criteria helps with that as it helps sponsors see how the Feature{{{^W}}}Planning Process interacts with changes to packages, freezes, rawhide builds vs submission in bodhi vs buildroot overrides, zero-day updates, critpath vs other packages, and much more.

I have to -1 this request on these grounds. From what I've seen of Björn's mailing list and bugzilla activity, I would be happy to +1 a provenpackager request, though, and would also be happy to vote +1 after he's seen the things that happen throughout a full release cycle.

If Björn does become a sponsor now, I would not be terribly unhappy -- he'll just need to be extra active in asking questions and paying attention to what's coming next in the release cycle so he's one step ahead of the people he mentors.

First I want to say thanks a lot to all who up-voted me so far.

Replying to [comment:7 toshio]:

I have to -1 this request on these grounds. From what I've seen of Björn's mailing list and bugzilla activity, I would be happy to +1 a provenpackager request, though, and would also be happy to vote +1 after he's seen the things that happen throughout a full release cycle.

Thank you, toshio, for thinking I'm trustworthy and proficient enough to be a provenpackager! I took the opportunity of your words [https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1124 applying for becoming a provenpackager], too. I would be very happy if you were the first one to vote.

-1

Call me picky but I think it's too early to become a sponsor. However I support Björn becoming a proven packager. Please apply again for sponsor status later.

Christoph, does that mean you insist on Björn to wait for "six months" as a MUST and not as a SHOULD?

It would be good to rework the policy documents and make them less ambiguous. One of the prerequisites for provenpackagers is that they are "acutely aware of release schedule and freeze policies", which is exactly the stuff you expect sponsors to know, too:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy

They are a group of skilled package maintainers who are
experienced in a wide variety of package types and who are
familiar with the packaging guidelines and package maintainer
policies, as well as acutely
'''aware of release schedule and freeze policies'''.

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

As "sufficient knowledge" is unworkably vague,
the following guidelines have been established.
Prospective sponsors should:

Replying to [comment:10 mschwendt]:

Christoph, does that mean you insist on Björn to wait for "six months" as a MUST and not as a SHOULD?

No. I just want him to gather more experience how things work in Fedora. Note that I am not speaking of hard facts like exact knowledge of the packaging guidelines but of a soft skill people automatically develop over time. Therefore I think a SHOULD is enough.

On the other hand I wouldn't mind a strict requirement of one release cycle for sponsors. I don't want to make this call, but I think the idea is worth a discussion.

I tend to agree with Toshio/cwickert: I think a month is very short, and I'm not sure how OpenSUSE handles stuff like updates etc (never worked with them), but I'd rather see you learn the Fedora policies and apply them than theirs.

But as I am not a sponsor myself for that long, I refrain from voting, and just put this in as my personal opinion.

While the request here is indeed a little unorthodox, I support the application to be a sponsor. bresser has shown an impressive combination of aptitude, enthusiasm/activity, and known when/how to ask questions and seek answers as needed. +1

Just a note that I deliberately wrote the policy documents to be ambiguous. Sponsors can vote for whoever they wish, and individual sponsors are welcome to treat the policy as hard guidelines or suggestions. I don't see it as a flaw that some people think "SHOULD" is enough while others want something stricter. Personally I'm in the latter camp.

So -1 from me, but feel free to come back later. I admire enthusiasm but I understand that it is often fleeting and in any case someone who is going to lead new contributors through our processes really should have at least seem them in action once.

Just a note that I deliberately wrote the policy documents to be ambiguous.

Not helpful. Something here is backwards.

(2009) Re: Draft guidelines for approving provenpackager
http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2009-January/msg01624.html

(2012)
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Tibbs/RevitalizingSponsorshipProposal

+1 for Bjorn as well. He's been very responsive and helpful with package reviews.

Replying to [comment:11 cwickert]:

Replying to [comment:10 mschwendt]:

Christoph, does that mean you insist on Björn to wait for "six months" as a MUST and not as a SHOULD?

No. I just want him to gather more experience how things work in Fedora. Note that I am not speaking of hard facts like exact knowledge of the packaging guidelines but of a soft skill people automatically develop over time. Therefore I think a SHOULD is enough.

On the other hand I wouldn't mind a strict requirement of one release cycle for sponsors. I don't want to make this call, but I think the idea is worth a discussion.

+1 (on cwickert's comment)
I've also had the chance to chat a bit with Björn. From a competence POV I'd also ack his request, but I also agree with what cwickert said.
Maybe we should let a bit of time pass before he becomes a sponsor. To give him time to experience all the "odd ends" and "quirks" of our Fedora Project. And additionally to get to know each other a bit better - after all it's also about trusting each other.

+1 from me

I think Bjorn has a real attitude to want to be sponsor. I saw that their opinions in the reviews are accurate and helpful. I think you have to give him a chance to show their true potential as sponsor.

I don't want to alter the vote as I've not had enough time to be helpful. I would like to suggest that some of the folks who have plus1'd Bjorn, should sponsor the two folks he mentioned at the top of the thread. Then, Bjorn, you can mentor them, etc and we continue with what cwickert suggested.

That way the new packagers can get brought on board and Bjorn can guide them.

All bugs and comments I can find suggest that Bjorn will do a good job at that and we can all make progress.

FYI: I am totally fine with skvidal's suggestion.

Well, folks, it's been seven days. I see the following votes:

+1 tstclair
+1 mschwendt
+1 dougsland
+1 mgieski
+1 rdieter
+1 rrati
+1 echevemaster
(7 total positive votes)

-1 toshio
-1 cwickert
-1 tibbs
(3 total negative votes)

The vote differential is +4, exceeding the +3 threshold required, so the vote passes. I have upgraded besser82's status.

Finally I want to thank everyone who participated in the vote. Thank you very much for the explanation of your position and votes.[[BR]]
I'll do my best using my new acquired powers, to the best of my knowledge and belief, for the good.

Thanks again,[[BR]]
Björn

Login to comment on this ticket.

Metadata