>>>>> "MS" == Michael Schwendt <mschwe...@gmail.com> writes:
MS> There are a few unfortunate sections in the first paragraph already: Except that they're all true. >> users have to go through an almost endless set of steps (which also >> needs revision, but that's another topic) MS> Compared with a few years ago there are many newbie-packagers, who MS> apparently are not interested in the 'Packaging' related Wiki pages MS> and not in the 'ReviewGuidelines' either. That's not really within the scope of the document. I haven't proposed lowering the standards for reviewing packages. And yes, this is a problem, but as stated by the parenthetical note which you quoted, it's not the problem I was targeting with my proposal. MS> It's disappointing to see that your "activity report" does not cover MS> activity in the review queue. Since the focus of the document is sponsorship, simple activity in the review queue was beyond the scope of what I'm trying to do. And in any case, I did state that getting useful statistics out of bugzilla for this is beyond what I am able to do. Maybe you could come up with some, though; I'd certainly be happy to look at them. MS> I may be one of those, who has not sponsored anyone in the past MS> year, but I post helpful (and detailed) review comments regularly MS> and encounter inactive package submitters both in the normal queue MS> and in the needsponsor queue. And that's great, thanks. MS> Forcing sponsors to fulfill such criteria is the wrong way IMO. It MS> may result in even more blanket-approval sponsorships. I don't happen to agree, but at some point shouldn't sponsors do something? Otherwise why do they have permission? What do you suggest as expanded criteria for keeping sponsor access? Or do you advocate no criteria at all, and sponsorship is lost by vote? Or are you saying it should never be lost once gained? - J< -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
