Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:54:44 + (UTC), Ben Boeckel wrote: Well, there is FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Could we add a checkbox to this page[1] for needing a sponsor? A new packager might not know about FE-NEEDSPONSOR and getting it right up front would help, I'd think. [1]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedoraformat=fedora-review The detailed Join process description for new packagers mentions FE-NEEDSPONSOR: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_Your_Review_Request Making bugzilla forms more complex cannot replace documentation. (We've had sponsored packagers requesting FE-NEEDSPONSOR for the package, and the fedora-review flag's '?' state is confusing enough already.) I also wouldn't mind seeing a list of FE-NEEDSPONSOR bugs be emailed to devel@ (similar to the ownership change email). Open reviews might be nice as well, but maybe just FE-NEEDSPONSOR would be something to start with. http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html [ http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ ] In the lists of new review requests, they are highlighted in green colour, and the list is sorted by date. Alternatively, add yourself to the Cc of the FE-NEEDSPONSOR tracker ticket in bugzilla. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 10/27/2013 12:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:54:44 + (UTC), Ben Boeckel wrote: I also wouldn't mind seeing a list of FE-NEEDSPONSOR bugs be emailed to devel@ (similar to the ownership change email). Open reviews might be nice as well, but maybe just FE-NEEDSPONSOR would be something to start with. http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html [ http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/ ] In the lists of new review requests, they are highlighted in green colour, and the list is sorted by date. Alternatively, add yourself to the Cc of the FE-NEEDSPONSOR tracker ticket in bugzilla. Or, email not all FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets but only those which are deemed too old to be OK. An email message like that (not too often!) would actually have a high signal/noise ratio, making all of us aware what's happening when a newcomer is sitting in limbo. Which she should not. Still remember the feeling sitting with a package waiting for a sponsor, trying to follow the process but with absolutely no sponsor feedback. It was *not* encouraging. --alec Well, there is FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Could we add a checkbox to this page[1] for needing a sponsor? A new packager might not know about FE-NEEDSPONSOR and getting it right up front would help, I'd think. [1]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedoraformat=fedora-review The detailed Join process description for new packagers mentions FE-NEEDSPONSOR: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Join_the_package_collection_maintainers#Create_Your_Review_Request Making bugzilla forms more complex cannot replace documentation. (We've had sponsored packagers requesting FE-NEEDSPONSOR for the package, and the fedora-review flag's '?' state is confusing enough already.) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:43:57 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: Or, email not all FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets but only those which are deemed too old to be OK. When would that be? A recurring problem in the review queue is long response time. That is, it takes several weeks (or even longer) till the submitter returns with a reply and/or an updated package. Another problem is if the submitter only offers a single new package. Often a small one, perhaps even with mistakes. Extra bad if it doesn't build. And while other submitters are brave enough to attempt at contributing a few reviews, some refuse to do that, and after a few months will still not have reviewed even their own package and have not read the Join Wiki page step-by-step instructions. Sorry, but there are guidelines about How To Get Sponsored. A little bit of activity is needed. Maintenance of the package in the collection also requires some effort. The sponsors aren't machines, who process the review queue in FIFO order and only click some buttons. FIFO isn't feasible, because some submitters are more responsive and are faster at absorbing the packaging guidelines and at providing packages that pass review. An email message like that (not too often!) would actually have a high signal/noise ratio, making all of us aware what's happening when a newcomer is sitting in limbo. Which she should not. It's always possible for the newcomer to ask for help on devel@ list. Communicate! Still remember the feeling sitting with a package waiting for a sponsor, trying to follow the process but with absolutely no sponsor feedback. It was *not* encouraging. Hmmm ... it has taken no more than five days for you to get sponsored: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/794985 In a slightly older ticket, a potential sponsor has returned to you quickly, and there has been a lot of activity in that ticket beyond that. If I search the Review Queue for your email address, I also find a much older attempt at submitting a package in 2008, and even then there has been quick feedback from a reviewer (after only five days). But after a series of comments, it gets harder to understand what has happened, and later you've not responded to the ping from a potential sponsor ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/471575 ). So, I think you're not fair. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 10/27/2013 07:43 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:43:57 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: Or, email not all FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets but only those which are deemed too old to be OK. When would that be? A recurring problem in the review queue is long response time. That is, it takes several weeks (or even longer) till the submitter returns with a reply and/or an updated package. Another problem is if the submitter only offers a single new package. Often a small one, perhaps even with mistakes. Extra bad if it doesn't build. And while other submitters are brave enough to attempt at contributing a few reviews, some refuse to do that, and after a few months will still not have reviewed even their own package and have not read the Join Wiki page step-by-step instructions. Sorry, but there are guidelines about How To Get Sponsored. A little bit of activity is needed. Maintenance of the package in the collection also requires some effort. The sponsors aren't machines, who process the review queue in FIFO order and only click some buttons. FIFO isn't feasible, because some submitters are more responsive and are faster at absorbing the packaging guidelines and at providing packages that pass review. Certainly not. my idea was just that some kind of reminder if no-one takes the ball , however that is defined (comment from sponsor, assigned to sponsor, ...) within some time. An email message like that (not too often!) would actually have a high signal/noise ratio, making all of us aware what's happening when a newcomer is sitting in limbo. Which she should not. It's always possible for the newcomer to ask for help on devel@ list. Communicate! True. But I know newcomers for which sending a mail to this list is a major step you don't really are ready for at that point. Believe it or not, I was one of them. Still remember the feeling sitting with a package waiting for a sponsor, trying to follow the process but with absolutely no sponsor feedback. It was *not* encouraging. Hmmm ... it has taken no more than five days for you to get sponsored: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/794985 In a slightly older ticket, a potential sponsor has returned to you quickly, and there has been a lot of activity in that ticket beyond that. If I search the Review Queue for your email address, I also find a much older attempt at submitting a package in 2008, and even then there has been quick feedback from a reviewer (after only five days). But after a series of comments, it gets harder to understand what has happened, and later you've not responded to the ping from a potential sponsor ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/471575 ). So, I think you're not fair. That package was actually a last attempt, which worked (thanks Petr!). That said, I havn't blamed anyone, just described my own feeling. How could that be unfair? --alec -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 20:23:22 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: [...] my idea was just that some kind of reminder if no-one takes the ball , however that is defined (comment from sponsor, assigned to sponsor, ...) within some time. That wouldn't be helpful. There would only be a notification about package submitters, who are inactive and wait for something to happen. The sponsorship process requires _two_ parties to be active. Working on the package during review often is much easier than working on it during its later lifetime in the package collection. It's always possible for the newcomer to ask for help on devel@ list. Communicate! True. But I know newcomers for which sending a mail to this list is a major step you don't really are ready for at that point. Believe it or not, I was one of them. That makes it harder to convince a sponsor: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group All I can report here is that, regularly, new packagers follow those instructions and are not too shy either to contact sponsors privately. Basic things like posting to mailing-lists (at Fedora or upstream) and opening tickets (at Fedora or upstream) may be prerequisites for getting sponsored. It can happen that a newcomer needs to contact upstream already during review. Sometimes submitters prefer dropping off. There are also Fedora Mentors that could be consulted: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mentors#Packaging If I search the Review Queue for your email address, I also find a much older attempt at submitting a package in 2008, and even then there has been quick feedback from a reviewer (after only five days). But after a series of comments, it gets harder to understand what has happened, and later you've not responded to the ping from a potential sponsor ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/471575 ). So, I think you're not fair. That package was actually a last attempt, which worked (thanks Petr!). That said, I havn't blamed anyone, just described my own feeling. How could that be unfair? I think the sponsorship process has worked well for you in 2012 with very quick sponsorship. It may have been different several years ago, but are we talking about the process as it works nowadays or in 2008? I also think it's too negative to refer to a last attempt without examining the details of your first attempt in 2008 and an explanation of what has happened there. I don't remember the size of the review queue in 2008. I don't know how many sponsors have been active in 2008. I don't remember whether the Review Tracker Website has been active already. I don't know whether you've tried to contact sponsors or whether you've asked the reviewer whether he might recommend a sponsor? You've submitted a completely different package in 2012. Here's an interpretation of what may have happened in 2008: In ticket 471575 you've received feedback from a reviewer after five days. So far so good. Several comments on the same day have been exchanged. There has not been any updated pair of spec/src.rpm however. Just a spec, and that might have interrupted the reviewers workflow. Many reviewers -- okay, some, but I guess many others do it similarly -- return to review tickets based on what happens in their related email folder. For example, they react to incoming bugzilla mails where they see that the reviewer has posted an updated package. They can mark such mails and delete other mails. That way they don't need to revisit a growing number of tickets only to find there has not been any activity. In this ticket, nothing has happened anymore. It would have been an idea to ask the reviewer. Either with a specific request in bugzilla or via email. That doesn't seem to have happened. There has not been an update on contributed reviews. Silence. In the same way, half a year later, a sponsor has joined and has even used the NEEDINFO flag in the two tickets and ping'ed several times, but that has not been responded to anymore. That has been a disappointing experience also for the sponsor, especially if there are more submitters who don't respond. Oh, and I found a ticket from 2011 that has not been assigned to Rawhide (all reviews are assigned to Rawhide), has been without the needsponsor link initially and has been closed as a duplicate in less than two months. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Sat, 19 Oct, 2013 at 22:22:58 GMT, Kevin Fenzi wrote: How about anytime someone (who is not a sponsor) has helped someone not yet sponsored and thinks their package(s) are ready for official review/sponsorship, they mail the pool of sponsors asking for someone to step up and do so? Or we add another state sponsors could query for this? Well, there is FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Could we add a checkbox to this page[1] for needing a sponsor? A new packager might not know about FE-NEEDSPONSOR and getting it right up front would help, I'd think. I also wouldn't mind seeing a list of FE-NEEDSPONSOR bugs be emailed to devel@ (similar to the ownership change email). Open reviews might be nice as well, but maybe just FE-NEEDSPONSOR would be something to start with. --Ben [1]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedoraformat=fedora-review -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:23:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 18:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is there not any testing and quality assurance for non-Test releases? Huh. I don't remember this ever coming up as a problem before, but I could've drunk away the memory. As far as I know it's the QA list; it covers testing of Fedora, so yes, it covers Rawhide use, in fact discussion of Rawhide use is quite a common topic area for test@. Do you have any references for its purpose being considered unclear? The split and intended usage has been questioned by several community members for many years, even already when the lists where still on Red Hat's servers. Locating such comments with a search engine isn't easy. The people who've pointed out the confusion about which list to choose when haven't drunk away their memory and could join here, but that will be fruitless if an instance such as FESCo decides otherwise. -maintainers list has been closed by FESCo for the same reasons, despite disagreement by community members: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2007-September/109577.html In that thread, there's a comment about closing fedora-test-list *and* fedora-packaging-list in favour of fedora-devel-list: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2007-September/109591.html To which I agreed, because in 2007 and earlier we've had problems with these two competing lists: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2007-September/109624.html Here's a reference that confirms past attempts at improving the list descriptions and intended usage: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2007-September/109625.html https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide#Mailing_Lists | Rawhide discussion is on topic and welcome in both the test and devel lists. D'oh! ;-) The Rawhide report being posted to both lists is the same problem. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2003-November/msg01148.html | Hmmm, shouldn't this be discussed on fedora-devel-list though? ;-) There are more. I just cannot spend more time on locating them. Similarly, users of fedora list, who enable updates-testing, get asked whether they should have posted to test list instead. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:02:23PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: The people who've pointed out the confusion about which list to choose when haven't drunk away their memory and could join here, but that will be fruitless if an instance such as FESCo decides otherwise. So, here's what I'd like to see. Collapse all lists to just four: * Fedora Users * Fedora Development - includes testing * Fedora Announcments - low traffic, big official announcements only * Auto-generated Reports - and probably tickets which go to a list; these things are useful to the people who want them but overall lower signal-to-noise ratio Which sounds a little dramatic, but we would start making heavy use of the mailman topics/keywords features to sort into meaningful sub-categories. I understand that hyperkitty will make this nice and easy, but it's also not really very hard just as email. Note that you can subscribe to just certain topics, if you are not interested in certain areas. We can still host other lists are focused around one clear goal (like development of a hosted project), but encourage most discussion to be on one of the main lists. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:17:14 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: I would think that if we are in a situation where people who do development don't subscribe to the devel list because of 'energy' reasons (disillusionment, feelings of either a) pointlessness b) fait-accompli, etc.), then just moving things to -announce is not actually solving the problem. Isn't it similar with bugzilla.redhat.com and package maintainers not responding to the hundreds of problem reports they receive there? There even is a separate Fedora list for glibc these days, with seldomly many more than half a dozen messages per month: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/glibc An own list for Zarafa, with not even a single post per month: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/zarafa/ A brand-new one for gnome, created on Sep 17th, with no more than the custom Welcome message: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/gnome/ Not even sure how that one relates to desktop list, which has had its peak activity with 223 messages in March 2013, but doesn't have a description: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/ There are more examples at: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo Lists, which have been created because of too much noise and too much traffic on devel list. Devel list is the dumping ground. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 16:02 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: The split and intended usage has been questioned by several community members for many years, even already when the lists where still on Red Hat's servers. Locating such comments with a search engine isn't easy. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2007-September/109577.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2007-September/109591.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2007-September/109624.html https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2007-September/109625.html https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/Rawhide#Mailing_Lists | Rawhide discussion is on topic and welcome in both the test and devel lists. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2003-November/msg01148.html | Hmmm, shouldn't this be discussed on fedora-devel-list though? ;-) There are more. I just cannot spend more time on locating them. Similarly, users of fedora list, who enable updates-testing, get asked whether they should have posted to test list instead. I can't help noticing that all your references are from a minimum of six years ago, which is, well, quite a long time. Ever since I've joined, which is ohgod nearly five years ago now, the split has seemed reasonably clear and non-controversial, and I really can't recall anyone being particularly confused about it, so perhaps this is a problem which is still current in your mind but obsolete in cold unfeeling reality? :) I think we wind up with more posts that we think would be appropriate for users@ than devel@. To me, at least, test@ has a very clear and specific purpose which is quite different from devel@, and I'd fight with tooth and claw any proposal to 'merge' them. Merging them would be a flat-out disaster for QA work: we have a different atmosphere and much lower traffic on test@, if all our useful and productive QA mails got drowned in the devel@ noise it would have a significant negative impact on our ability to do useful stuff. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 10:48 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:02:23PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: The people who've pointed out the confusion about which list to choose when haven't drunk away their memory and could join here, but that will be fruitless if an instance such as FESCo decides otherwise. So, here's what I'd like to see. Collapse all lists to just four: * Fedora Users * Fedora Development - includes testing * Fedora Announcments - low traffic, big official announcements only * Auto-generated Reports - and probably tickets which go to a list; these things are useful to the people who want them but overall lower signal-to-noise ratio Which sounds a little dramatic, but we would start making heavy use of the mailman topics/keywords features to sort into meaningful sub-categories. I understand that hyperkitty will make this nice and easy, but it's also not really very hard just as email. Note that you can subscribe to just certain topics, if you are not interested in certain areas. So, have fewer lists, but then have what are effectively sub-lists within the lists. Where exactly is the win? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:28 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Ever since I've joined, which is ohgod nearly five years ago now, the split has seemed reasonably clear and non-controversial, and I really can't recall anyone being particularly confused about it, so perhaps this is a problem which is still current in your mind but obsolete in cold unfeeling reality? :) This is no real basis for trying to improve anything. I'm not here to fight for anything. If you put it as if I'm the only one, who thinks that the many lists and their purpose is confusing, well, then let's stop. To have two lists about Rawhide (even for the build reports) is the most fundamental mistake already. I think we wind up with more posts that we think would be appropriate for users@ than devel@. To me, at least, test@ has a very clear and specific purpose which is quite different from devel@, So very clear that qa-devel has been split off early this year, after the Fedora QA trac notifications had caused a flood of posts to test list. and I'd fight with tooth and claw any proposal to 'merge' them. Merging them would be a flat-out disaster for QA work: we have a different atmosphere and much lower traffic on test@, if all our useful and productive QA mails got drowned in the devel@ noise it would have a significant negative impact on our ability to do useful stuff. Moving all Rawhide topics, build failures, build report, package version upgrade annoucements, ABI breakage announcements, Branched report, Rawhide report, from devel to test list would be the way to go. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 21:43 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:28 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: Ever since I've joined, which is ohgod nearly five years ago now, the split has seemed reasonably clear and non-controversial, and I really can't recall anyone being particularly confused about it, so perhaps this is a problem which is still current in your mind but obsolete in cold unfeeling reality? :) This is no real basis for trying to improve anything. I'm not here to fight for anything. If you put it as if I'm the only one, who thinks that the many lists and their purpose is confusing, well, then let's stop. Well, I don't know which perspective is true for sure, just offering the possibility. To have two lists about Rawhide (even for the build reports) is the most fundamental mistake already. Neither list is really 'about' Rawhide. test is about testing, devel is about development. Obviously, both are going to *involve* Rawhide at some point. But our lists are not per-product lists; we don't have a Rawhide list and an F20 list and an F19 list. They're about topic areas. I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too; that doesn't mean their topics should be on the same list as development topics that involve Rawhide and QA topics that involve Rawhide and artwork topics that involve Rawhide... I think we wind up with more posts that we think would be appropriate for users@ than devel@. To me, at least, test@ has a very clear and specific purpose which is quite different from devel@, So very clear that qa-devel has been split off early this year, after the Fedora QA trac notifications had caused a flood of posts to test list. Well, yes? The purpose of the test@ list clearly didn't include those mails, so they were moved. They are clearly also not appropriate for devel@, because they're about QA tooling development. and I'd fight with tooth and claw any proposal to 'merge' them. Merging them would be a flat-out disaster for QA work: we have a different atmosphere and much lower traffic on test@, if all our useful and productive QA mails got drowned in the devel@ noise it would have a significant negative impact on our ability to do useful stuff. Moving all Rawhide topics, build failures, build report, package version upgrade annoucements, ABI breakage announcements, Branched report, Rawhide report, from devel to test list would be the way to go. Well, no it wouldn't, because most of those mails are relevant to *developers* (or rather, packagers), not testers. Which is why they're sent to devel@. Build failures are fixed by packagers. ABI bumps are fixed by packagers. The errors identified on the Branched and Rawhide reports are fixed by packagers. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too; Unlike devel, the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it? Could you imagine turning devel into a less general list? Is devel the catch-all for anything related to arbitrary development issues in the Fedora Project? doc-fol [no description available] docsFor participants of the Documentation Project docs-commitsFor tracking commits to Docs Project owned modules docs-qa Fedora Docs QA list To me, at least, test@ has a very clear and specific purpose which is quite different from devel@, So very clear that qa-devel has been split off early this year, after the Fedora QA trac notifications had caused a flood of posts to test list. Well, yes? The purpose of the test@ list clearly didn't include those mails, so they were moved. They are clearly also not appropriate for devel@, because they're about QA tooling development. Are downtime announcements for AutoQA posted only to that list? Moving all Rawhide topics, build failures, build report, package version upgrade annoucements, ABI breakage announcements, Branched report, Rawhide report, from devel to test list would be the way to go. Well, no it wouldn't, because most of those mails are relevant to *developers* (or rather, packagers), not testers. Which is why they're sent to devel@. Build failures are fixed by packagers. ABI bumps are fixed by packagers. The errors identified on the Branched and Rawhide reports are fixed by packagers. Why are rawhide report and F-20 Branched reported also sent to test list? Why the duplication? Why are the F-19 and F-18 updates-testing reports not sent to users list to raise awareness of what updates may be releases as stable updates in after a few days already? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 23:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too; Unlike devel, the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it? Could you imagine turning devel into a less general list? Is devel the catch-all for anything related to arbitrary development issues in the Fedora Project? I tend to think of it as 'the list for people packaging stuff for Fedora', myself. I can't tell you how others think of it, but that seems to map quite well for me. Well, yes? The purpose of the test@ list clearly didn't include those mails, so they were moved. They are clearly also not appropriate for devel@, because they're about QA tooling development. Are downtime announcements for AutoQA posted only to that list? I'm not sure. As AutoQA is meant to be a tool for the benefit of packagers, it would make sense to send them to devel@ too; if we're not doing that we probably should. Moving all Rawhide topics, build failures, build report, package version upgrade annoucements, ABI breakage announcements, Branched report, Rawhide report, from devel to test list would be the way to go. Well, no it wouldn't, because most of those mails are relevant to *developers* (or rather, packagers), not testers. Which is why they're sent to devel@. Build failures are fixed by packagers. ABI bumps are fixed by packagers. The errors identified on the Branched and Rawhide reports are fixed by packagers. Why are rawhide report and F-20 Branched reported also sent to test list? Why the duplication? I could live without 'em being duplicated, really. I think the idea is that testers may want to know what packages have been changed in the previous day. Why are the F-19 and F-18 updates-testing reports not sent to users list to raise awareness of what updates may be releases as stable updates in after a few days already? I don't know; possibly just volume (they're long emails and there's three of 'em a day, I used to find time to try and read them all, these days I just tend to mark 'em as read and move on). But it seems like a reasonable idea. Perhaps someone's worried such long automated mails might scare the users@ audience? I don't read users@, so I don't really know. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: mailman topics/keywords features to sort into meaningful sub-categories. I understand that hyperkitty will make this nice and easy, but it's also not really very hard just as email. Note that you can subscribe to just certain topics, if you are not interested in certain areas. So, have fewer lists, but then have what are effectively sub-lists within the lists. Where exactly is the win? Opting in / out of topics is more lightweight than subscribing and unsubscribing. And the web interface will present it all together with easy ways to filter on the fly. (I notice that hyperkitty lets me change categories for a post after the fact; this is cool and I think desirable but I'm not sure how it interacts if at all with mailman keywords.) I'd love to hear better suggestions the main problem seems to be it's so busy no one goes there anymore. How can we keep the discussion cohesive but prevent it from becoming overwhelming? -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 17:41 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: I'd love to hear better suggestions the main problem seems to be it's so busy no one goes there anymore. There is a rather obvious gaping logical flaw in that one ;) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Oct 25, 2013 3:09 PM, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too; Unlike devel, the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it? Could you imagine turning devel into a less general list? Is devel the catch-all for anything related to arbitrary development issues in the Fedora Project? doc-fol [no description available] docsFor participants of the Documentation Project docs-commitsFor tracking commits to Docs Project owned modules docs-qa Fedora Docs QA list *snip* This really isn't a fair comparison. Fedora Documentation is a distinct product; in some contexts it is an upstream project using Fedora/fedorahosted resources. For this discussion, citing, oh, the cobbler mailing list would be just as effective. --Pete -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: mailman topics/keywords features to sort into meaningful sub-categories. I understand that hyperkitty will make this nice and easy, but it's also not really very hard just as email. Note that you can subscribe to just certain topics, if you are not interested in certain areas. So, have fewer lists, but then have what are effectively sub-lists within the lists. Where exactly is the win? Opting in / out of topics is more lightweight than subscribing and unsubscribing. Subscribing to a mailing list is an one-time, 5-minute operation (BTDT just today). OTOH dealing with topics is a constant cost: mail programs have good autocompletion for the To: field, but not for arbitrary syntax in Subject:. It's mental overhead and there will be an unending stream of mistakes. I'd love to hear better suggestions the main problem seems to be it's so busy no one goes there anymore. How can we keep the discussion cohesive but prevent it from becoming overwhelming? In general, avoid badly targeted email. Doing this for human communication is fairly difficult - we'll see whether/how much the new working groups will help minimizing the communication that is irrelevant to most. (Corollary: if you care about any of the WGs, subscribe now :) ) It would be probably simpler for the automated emails: unless everyone on the list wants to, or should want to, read them, just stop sending them; _and_, send them to a better targeted group, which would make them more useful. E.g. the rawhide/F20 report and EVR problem e-mails should, I think be sent to rel-eng (if they read it, that is) and the packagers that need to take action. (Currently I never read them, so I wouldn't even notice if they mentioned my package - for me they are pure overhead.) Mirek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 16:02:44 -0600, Pete Travis wrote: On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too; Unlike devel, the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it? Could you imagine turning devel into a less general list? Is devel the catch-all for anything related to arbitrary development issues in the Fedora Project? doc-fol [no description available] docsFor participants of the Documentation Project docs-commitsFor tracking commits to Docs Project owned modules docs-qa Fedora Docs QA list *snip* This really isn't a fair comparison. Fedora Documentation is a distinct product; in some contexts it is an upstream project using Fedora/fedorahosted resources. For this discussion, citing, oh, the cobbler mailing list would be just as effective. I guess we will hardly ever read about Fedora Documentation on devel list and only occasionally see related announcements that affect packagers. I've mentioned other lists before. Those that overlap are troublesome. Cross-posting is troublesome, if it results in replies only on one list. Separate lists that move traffic from somewhere else can be a problem, too. Suddenly, subscribers of a list, such as devel, no longer learn about the topics that have moved elsewhere. Unless they subscribe to the separate list. Adam says that devel is relevant to *developers* (or rather, packagers). Yet there is the packaging list, too. Quote from Oct 16th: I don't know whether this belongs to the packaging or devel list, Not even devel-announce is used consistently. Some people post version bump announcements there. If that were done for the entire package collection, forget about the LOW TRAFFIC mentioned in the list description. ;) I guess the problem is not fixable with old-school mailing-lists. The thread Lack of response about sponsorship could have posted on fedora-join list. Who has been aware of that list anyway? https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-join/ It's linked in some places, but has it been announced on announce or devel-announce? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 02:11 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: Adam says that devel is relevant to *developers* (or rather, packagers). Yet there is the packaging list, too. Quote from Oct 16th: I don't know whether this belongs to the packaging or devel list, Now to me, THAT seems like a redundancy :) devel@ is the list for, well, developing Fedora. Is there a history behind the packaging list? I'm not familiar with it. Is it actually used much? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/25/2013 04:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:02:23PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: The people who've pointed out the confusion about which list to choose when haven't drunk away their memory and could join here, but that will be fruitless if an instance such as FESCo decides otherwise. So, here's what I'd like to see. Collapse all lists to just four: * Fedora Users * Fedora Development - includes testing * Fedora Announcments - low traffic, big official announcements only * Auto-generated Reports - and probably tickets which go to a list; these things are useful to the people who want them but overall lower signal-to-noise ratio History repeats - This is approximately what Fedora had in its early days. Then, people were complaining about traffic and low S/N. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/26/2013 02:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 02:11 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: Adam says that devel is relevant to *developers* (or rather, packagers). Yet there is the packaging list, too. Quote from Oct 16th: I don't know whether this belongs to the packaging or devel list, Now to me, THAT seems like a redundancy :) devel@ is the list for, well, developing Fedora. Is there a history behind the packaging list? Yes. It's about discussing packaging issues and packaging standards. The reason it exists is the same as with most other lists: People having complained about packaging discussions being non-interesting to them and thus contributing to what they consider to be noise. I'm not familiar with it. Is it actually used much? Yes, it is. It's not a high traffic list, but it's in active use. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/25/2013 11:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 17:41 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
I'd love to hear better suggestions the main problem seems to be it's
so busy no one goes there anymore.
There is a rather obvious gaping logical flaw in that one ;)
Not quite. Complaints like these were common in the early Fedora days:
I am unsubscribing, because though I am a {kernel|java|..}-dev, most
postings are not of interest to me.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 10/24/2013 07:01 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: Errr... I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him quickly as well. Why should we? I don't see why this should be of any relevance. Somebody being involved into upstream only is an indication for somebody being familiar with a package's contents. It doesn't tell us anything about his familiarity with Fedora-packaging nor about his package's quality. Unfortunately, experience also tells, there are occations, in which people, who are close to upstream, sometimes fail to apply a neutral view on their works. Also applied to comaintainer as upstream. And if people coming from some Big Company like Oracle/HP, we can sponsor them as well as normal guys. Right, a person's $dayjob's affiliation should not be of any importance in Fedora. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:01:18 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: Errr... I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him quickly as well. Well, people are different, and it may not always happen quickly, if the package suffers from issues and/or the Fedora specific stuff (buildsys, updates, ...) is considered a hindrance. Being upstream does not imply real interest in maintaining the Fedora package. If an upstream dev uses Fedora, it may be different. Also applied to comaintainer as upstream. My experience here is that if a package included in the collection is considered _maintained_, so nobody else wants to sign up as co-maintainer. And if there's one thing for sure, upstream devs only care about Fedora bugzilla, if they are explicitly pointed at specific tickets with backtraces. They don't want the overhead of observing how the Fedora package is maintained. Even if a package turns out to be unmaintained (aka semi-orphaned), it is more likely picked up by an existing packager than a community member, who takes that as an opportunity to join as a packager. Eventually, more people in the community will realise that co-maintaining can be fun. See an example of mindi-busybox, packager from HP still can't get sponsored after 5 years. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476234 It has had fedora-review flag set to '?', which means somebody is working on it. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
See an example of mindi-busybox, packager from HP still can't get sponsored after 5 years. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476234 It has had fedora-review flag set to '?', which means somebody is working on it. I've cleaned up the tickets and their dependencies. Several have not been displayed in the review queue, none has been displayed on the needsponsor list, and Bruno uses three different submitter email addresses in bugzilla. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 13:17:53 +0200, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: Several have not been displayed in the review queue, none has been displayed on the needsponsor list, and Bruno uses three different submitter email addresses in bugzilla. Me Bruno? I should be just using br...@wolff.to these days. I might have used UWM addresses in the past, but shouldn't have used one for Fedora in years. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:11:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: Several have not been displayed in the review queue, none has been displayed on the needsponsor list, and Bruno uses three different submitter email addresses in bugzilla. Me Bruno? No, another Bruno, previously referred to as packager from HP in the bugzilla ticket link you've cut off in your quote. ;-P -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 16:22 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: to step up and do so? Or we add another state sponsors could query for this? I think this would very much be the best option. For instance, a couple of us have been reviewing the gooey-karma package (like easy-karma, but with a GUI!): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1020839 but we're not sponsors. It'd be great if there was a bit we could flip that said 'we think this package is good to go and the person is ready to be sponsored, can a sponsor please have a look?' -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 18:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is there not any testing and quality assurance for non-Test releases? Huh. I don't remember this ever coming up as a problem before, but I could've drunk away the memory. As far as I know it's the QA list; it covers testing of Fedora, so yes, it covers Rawhide use, in fact discussion of Rawhide use is quite a common topic area for test@. Do you have any references for its purpose being considered unclear? -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 17:34 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 10/21/2013 05:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: So, discussing Test Updates for stable dist releases belongs onto which list? According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. Huh, again, I just don't quite recognize this. I don't recall that we've redirected any discussion of updates-testing stuff to user@ recently. What we do sometimes redirect is stuff which is pure 'support request' - 'help me do (not-testing-related-at-all thing)!', because that's kinda clearly off-topic for test@. Just because you're running updates-testing doesn't mean your topic is actually something to do with testing. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 07:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/21/2013 07:48 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago. What is the reason? More people avoiding MLs like the plague? Too many MLs? Yes, that's one aspect. Too many communication channels other than email? May-be, but I doubt this. Actually I think many new packagers aren't aware about the MLs and might be confused about which MLs to subscribe. I also believe contributors are unsubscribing from some MLs because they consider some of them to be polluted by bureaucratic chatter - It's what e.g. I consider the test and the perl-devel ML to be. ? test@ is a moderately low-traffic list (about a dozen mails a day), and I'm not sure what you'd characterize as 'bureaucratic chatter'? Unless you mean the updates-testing summary mails, which aren't really 'bureaucratic'. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
Errr... I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him quickly as well. Also applied to comaintainer as upstream. And if people coming from some Big Company like Oracle/HP, we can sponsor them as well as normal guys. See an example of mindi-busybox, packager from HP still can't get sponsored after 5 years. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476234 If I were him I couldn't wait so long. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 10/21/2013 09:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: * Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ. Probably the same reasons as with the normal review requests. Sometimes reviews have stalled because of bundled libs, licensing troubles, missing deps, waiting for upstream. http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html Yes. But is this just problem of submiter? I would say that sponsor should lead. And either help to resolve it or suggest to close it. Having it open indefinitely with false hope is not good. * Oldest change on BZs waiting for sponsor is from 2010. Which ticket is that? Above page lists four tickets from 2011, but all have changed in 2013. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508126 -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 17/10/13 05:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: I agree; this is a problem. (In general, I think the beg-for-review-swaps system is not friendly to new contributors.) I see that you applied for sponsorship https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/ticket/90 but there wasn't enough activity on the ticket to make the approval threshold. Maybe something which attracts more activity from sponsors in reviewing new sponsors would help? I have been caught with other projects (Design spin to name a few) hence the lack of activities on the tickets I will look up when I will have opportunity. Luya -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:59:28 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On 10/21/2013 09:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: * Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ. Probably the same reasons as with the normal review requests. Sometimes reviews have stalled because of bundled libs, licensing troubles, missing deps, waiting for upstream. http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html Yes. But is this just problem of submiter? I would say that sponsor should lead. And either help to resolve it or suggest to close it. Having it open indefinitely with false hope is not good. Let's talk about specific tickets then, please. There are various reasons why there may be no progress in some reviews. * Oldest change on BZs waiting for sponsor is from 2010. Which ticket is that? Above page lists four tickets from 2011, but all have changed in 2013. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=508126 It's approved since 2009-09-21 - fedora-review+ It's approved in dist git since 2009--09-22 - fedora-cvs+ Packager is sponsored - 2009-09-21 Packager is member of more than a dozen groups in FAS. It's waiting for the submitter to import and build. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=508126 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 08:26:54PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: Correct. Less lists (or the same lists) and with a more well-defined target group and description. So, in the not so far future, we'll have mailman3 and hyperkitty, and we want to migrate the lists to that. That switchover point could also be a time when we consolidate and rationalize the overall structure. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said: As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. Even if one uses filtering, the recurring task of skimming over the devel list folder is tiresome, since it's not the only list one is subscribed to. Not even meetings logs are posted to devel-announce list, however. Good idea. What items could we move to announce that would be more useful for folks that don't have as much time/energy to skim the main list? fesco meeting agenda/minutes? (note that this would be weekly, so increase the announce list a good deal) Any other things that would be better as announcements? I would think that if we are in a situation where people who do development don't subscribe to the devel list because of 'energy' reasons (disillusionment, feelings of either a) pointlessness b) fait-accompli, etc.), then just moving things to -announce is not actually solving the problem. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 20/10/13 22:01, Pete Travis wrote: *snip* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group lists, how to get sponsored. Just waiting might be a solution, but probably not the fastest one. Matthias -- I don't agree with this. The sponsorship process is as much an introduction to the community as a verification that someone understands the guidelines. It was valuable to me as a new packager in this context, and there is a lot of potential for the process to foster a sense of collaboration and community. Exactly what I meant! You'll learn a LOT when looking at other people's contributions, especially when forced to thing about it. Matthias -- Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors right now. * This year 83 people have been sponsored. * 191 people are waiting to be sponsored. * Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ. * Oldest change on BZs waiting for sponsor is from 2010. It would be nice if sponsors can sponsor at least one packager per year. On the other hand, even if I would have plenty of time, I would not sponsor more then 1 packager per quarter. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
Hi, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors right now. * This year 83 people have been sponsored. * 191 people are waiting to be sponsored. By looking into this page http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html , I see 60 people are need to be sponsored in the packager group. Are your numbers for all the available groups in FAS? Regards, Parag -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 10/21/2013 03:28 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: Hi, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com mailto:msu...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors right now. * This year 83 people have been sponsored. * 191 people are waiting to be sponsored. By looking into this page http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html , I see 60 people are need to be sponsored in the packager group. Are your numbers for all the available groups in FAS? I use this query: http://tinyurl.com/ndp8ae7 which is - all bugs which blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR - which include BZ with review flag set to ?. And yes, some BZs have same reporter. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCE, RHCDS Red Hat, Software Engineer, #brno, #devexp, #fedora-buildsys -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
Hi, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/21/2013 03:28 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: Hi, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý msu...@redhat.commailto: msu...@redhat.com wrote: On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors right now. * This year 83 people have been sponsored. * 191 people are waiting to be sponsored. By looking into this page http://fedoraproject.org/** PackageReviewStatus/**NEEDSPONSOR.htmlhttp://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html, I see 60 people are need to be sponsored in the packager group. Are your numbers for all the available groups in FAS? I use this query: http://tinyurl.com/ndp8ae7 which is - all bugs which blocks FE-NEEDSPONSOR - which include BZ with review flag set to ?. And yes, some BZs have same reporter. I am not able to see your bugzilla query. All I see is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?cmdtype=runnamednamedcmd=reviewes%20need%20sponsorlist_id=1826234 Regards, Parag -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 01:42:37AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 21 October 2013 07:52, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 01:42:37AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? Don't we have this same conversation every two years? With pretty much the same questions and feeling of disconnectedness? We fix a couple of things, and then get back to doing stuff and then wake up and go where did everyone go? [I know we have had this almost exact conversation back in 2009 and almost the same in 2011. I remember something similar in 2007. It may happen more often than that but I remember those more clearly.] -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted to them), it cannot be fixed. As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. Even if one uses filtering, the recurring task of skimming over the devel list folder is tiresome, since it's not the only list one is subscribed to. Not even meetings logs are posted to devel-announce list, however. The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is there not any testing and quality assurance for non-Test releases? Why doesn't the packager group doesn't have an own list? Why is the description of the packaging list so brief and vague? Is it just me who cannot tell when to choose which list? [ This mailing list provides a discussion forum for RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora. ] Where is a list that devotes to managing the Fedora Project and its multitude of policies and procedures? Such as the sponsorship process. The description of the advisory-board list is vague. Should it have been used for this thread instead of devel? Does FESCo still use a non-public list? What about the FPC? Are they limited to their IRC meetings? Why don't they talk about anything on packaging list? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Discussions [ Discussion and decisions can also take place in the packaging mailing list. ] Who is in charge of defining the sponsorship process? Who believes the current process doesn't work? Does leadership think it doesn't work? Or is it only a few (frustrated?) package submitters, who don't want to attempt at contributing a single review in several months? In packagersponsors' trac I see sponsor request notification mails flying by, and becoming a co-maintainer even is one documented way to get sponsored. That part of the process works. In the review queue, I see that some submitters _do_ visit other tickets and comment on them, trying to learn about packaging for Fedora. Currently, I don't think much is wrong (or not working) with the sponsorship process. However, I'm not sure devel list is a good place for new contributors to get in contact with other packagers and potential sponsors. For example, there ought to be a list where advertising submitted review requests is officially permitted. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/21/2013 04:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is there not any testing and quality assurance for non-Test releases? The intended usage of the test list has always been clear anything related to any testing as well as general QA community activy should be posted there and there was a time that was enforced and each test related topic or post on devel was redirected there. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:08:09 +0200 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted to them), it cannot be fixed. As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. Even if one uses filtering, the recurring task of skimming over the devel list folder is tiresome, since it's not the only list one is subscribed to. Not even meetings logs are posted to devel-announce list, however. Good idea. What items could we move to announce that would be more useful for folks that don't have as much time/energy to skim the main list? fesco meeting agenda/minutes? (note that this would be weekly, so increase the announce list a good deal) Any other things that would be better as announcements? The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is there not any testing and quality assurance for non-Test releases? Well, it's always been clear to me... test list is for any branched/rawhide issues. How can we improve the summary? Or does anyone disagree that that is the target? Why doesn't the packager group doesn't have an own list? Why is the description of the packaging list so brief and vague? Is it just me who cannot tell when to choose which list? [ This mailing list provides a discussion forum for RPM packaging standards and practices for Fedora. ] What would the 'packager' list talk about? 'packaging' is about current and changing packaging guidelines (ie, a list for the FPC). Where is a list that devotes to managing the Fedora Project and its multitude of policies and procedures? Such as the sponsorship process. The description of the advisory-board list is vague. Should it have been used for this thread instead of devel? I would say that is the devel list. Does FESCo still use a non-public list? There is a fesco private list, but it's very rarely used. In the past it's been for things like someone saying they won't make the next meeting or the like. Personally, I would prefer to just get rid of it. What about the FPC? Are they limited to their IRC meetings? Why don't they talk about anything on packaging list? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging_Committee#Discussions [ Discussion and decisions can also take place in the packaging mailing list. ] They do/have in the past? I don't know why they haven't recently.. Who is in charge of defining the sponsorship process? FESCo. Who believes the current process doesn't work? At least a few folks on this thread I guess. Does leadership think it doesn't work? Or is it only a few (frustrated?) package submitters, who don't want to attempt at contributing a single review in several months? Not sure. I can only speak for myself, but I think we could do better... the long delays where people aren't sure they should be doing anything aren't good. In packagersponsors' trac I see sponsor request notification mails flying by, and becoming a co-maintainer even is one documented way to get sponsored. That part of the process works. In the review queue, I see that some submitters _do_ visit other tickets and comment on them, trying to learn about packaging for Fedora. Currently, I don't think much is wrong (or not working) with the sponsorship process. However, I'm not sure devel list is a good place for new contributors to get in contact with other packagers and potential sponsors. For example, there ought to be a list where advertising submitted review requests is officially permitted. This list should be fine for those, IMHO. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com wrote: Good idea. What items could we move to announce that would be more useful for folks that don't have as much time/energy to skim the main list? I'm assuming you're referring to the devel-announce list, and not the general announce list, correct? fesco meeting agenda/minutes? (note that this would be weekly, so increase the announce list a good deal) +1 from me. -- Jared Smith -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 06:08:09PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted to them), it cannot be fixed. Hmmm; I don't know if that proposition is basically true. I'm also not sure about the conclusion, but, logically, if it is, we need to find a solution that isn't mailing lists. Maybe hyperkitty will present the perfect middle ground, but I think in order for that to be true we need to really present it as front and center. As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago. Anyway, though, I think you're suggesting that the solution is more lists, more carefully defined and finely separated. That seems likely to make things more segregated, not less. -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/21/2013 06:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted to them), it cannot be fixed. As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. Openly said, I find your attitude disturbing. Open Source development requires open minds, which comprises open and occasionally heated controversial discussions. Hidding away in ivory towers, bunkers and closed circles is not the spirit can be open source development is based on. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 21 October 2013 11:08, Matthew Miller mat...@fedoraproject.org wrote: On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:00:59AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: Don't we have this same conversation every two years? With pretty much the same questions and feeling of disconnectedness? We fix a couple of things, and then get back to doing stuff and then wake up and go where did everyone go? [I know we have had this almost exact conversation back in 2009 and almost the same in 2011. I remember something similar in 2007. It may happen more often than that but I remember those more clearly.] This suggests we need a bigger fix. Well one of the problems is that most of the people I know who bring this up or feel this way are very concentrated on something else for some time and then when they get a break from that.. look around and don't feel connected with whatever is going on now. However that is pretty normal for humans.. the problems are that it is hard to get them reintegrated because the other groups are all concentrating on something else and won't care about the others unless a) it affects what they themselves are working on or b) they come up for air around the same time. The way human cultures deal with this normally is various social times (drinking, eating, talking, being around each other) which is a) hard with an online organization and b) something that many computer people hate doing. Fudcons help a bit in this but they really don't bring together the old group and new group together regularly enough to be a proper solution. The other way it works is that the people who feel like outsiders leave and go somewhere else to set up their own community or find a group they like they can link up with. This is what we see happen a lot and we fret about it constantly. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:23:29 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: The intended usage of test list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is there not any testing and quality assurance for non-Test releases? The intended usage of the test list has always been clear anything related to any testing as well as general QA community activy should be posted there and there was a time that was enforced and each test related topic or post on devel was redirected there. Kinda hard to parse that due to lack of punctation marks ;-) but: It is not only my impression what I've pointed out above. If users of existing stable dist release post to test list about Test Updates, regularly they are redirected to users list. If they are subscribed to users list only, they miss topics about Test Updates. Once the Test Update is marked stable but doesn't work, another thread is opened on users' list. So, discussing Test Updates for stable dist releases belongs onto which list? Further, F-20 Branched report is cross-posted to devel _and_ test list. This is bad, since not only is cross-posting frowned upon, replies to only either list start disconnected threads. And why is devel list so general that even the build reports get posted there? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/21/2013 05:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: So, discussing Test Updates for stable dist releases belongs onto which list? According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. If that's true then the updates-testing mail for N and N-1 need to go to the user list. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/21/2013 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. If that's true then the updates-testing mail for N and N-1 need to go to the user list. Or we could try to do what's right and move all and I mean all test related topics to the QA community on the test list. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago. What is the reason? More people avoiding MLs like the plague? Too many MLs? Too many communication channels other than email? I'm sure more traffic on the -announce lists will have critics pop up like mushrooms, too. It's still too much traffic on devel list. Do new packagers subscribe to it? Do they subscribe to packagers list? What experience have other people made? If I wanted to address all potential sponsors for packagers, what list would I post to? A couple of years ago, one would be informed well when following devel list. This has changed. A couple of years ago (also related to the old lists for Red Hat Linux distributions, not RHEL), one could be certain that a couple of important people (leaders) would see the post and react eventually or take it elsewhere. I have doubts it works like this anymore. Even during IRC meetings, one can see people moan about the work that would be necessary when changing policies/processes (= somebody preparing a beautiful draft first). Anyway, though, I think you're suggesting that the solution is more lists, more carefully defined and finely separated. That seems likely to make things more segregated, not less. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo I think there are too many lists. Too many to choose from. I miss the dist-specific lists. I think there are too many lists with no description available. I think there are lists such as epel-announce that are superfluous, and it's highly likely that hardly anybody knows when to post to them. Watch the last few months: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-announce/ Nobody paying attention there? Everyone happy with that? A put up or shut up reply might follow next. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 21 October 2013 11:48, Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago. What is the reason? More people avoiding MLs like the plague? Too many MLs? Too many communication channels other than email? I'm sure more traffic on the -announce lists will have critics pop up like mushrooms, too. It's still too much traffic on devel list. Do new packagers subscribe to it? Do they subscribe to packagers list? What experience have other people made? If I wanted to address all potential sponsors for packagers, what list would I post to? A couple of years ago, one would be informed well when following devel list. This has changed. A couple of years ago (also related to the old lists for Red Hat Linux distributions, not RHEL), one could be certain that a couple of important people (leaders) would see the post and react eventually or take it elsewhere. I have doubts it works like this anymore. Even during IRC meetings, one can see people moan about the work that would be necessary when changing policies/processes (= somebody preparing a beautiful draft first). Anyway, though, I think you're suggesting that the solution is more lists, more carefully defined and finely separated. That seems likely to make things more segregated, not less. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo I think there are too many lists. Too many to choose from. I miss the dist-specific lists. I think there are too many lists with no description available. I think there are lists such as epel-announce that are superfluous, and it's highly likely that hardly anybody knows when to post to them. Watch the last few months: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-announce/ Nobody paying attention there? Everyone happy with that? A put up or shut up reply might follow next. I am not saying shut-up but I am saying that I am confused by what you mean. First you seem to advocate more lists, then you advocate less lists. First you advocate too much email then you want more communication. I am guessing, and I really mean guessing that you mean that you want more signal and less noise but I going to guess that for most of the people sending email to the lists they believe they are sending signal and not noise.. so what we need is to know more about what you (and eventually everyone else) means by signal for you. Does what I say help any to clarify my confusion? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:16:53 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: On 10/21/2013 06:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any thoughts or ideas as to how? If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted to them), it cannot be fixed. As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. Openly said, I find your attitude disturbing. Open Source development requires open minds, which comprises open and occasionally heated controversial discussions. Hidding away in ivory towers, bunkers and closed circles is not the spirit can be open source development is based on. ??? Wow, what a disturbing comment! How does it relate to anything I've written? And what is my attitude? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:57:06 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: I am not saying shut-up but I am saying that I am confused by what you mean. First you seem to advocate more lists, That could be a misunderstanding. Have I've phrased something very poorly. Then please tell and give me a chance to try again. then you advocate less lists. Correct. Less lists (or the same lists) and with a more well-defined target group and description. First you advocate too much email then you want more communication. I am guessing, and I really mean guessing that you mean that you want more signal and less noise but I going to guess that for most of the people sending email to the lists they believe they are sending signal and not noise.. so what we need is to know more about what you (and eventually everyone else) means by signal for you. Does what I say help any to clarify my confusion? More signal less noise doesn't cover it. I'd like to know what lists to use for what. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:47:12 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 10/21/2013 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. If that's true then the updates-testing mail for N and N-1 need to go to the user list. Or we could try to do what's right and move all and I mean all test related topics to the QA community on the test list. Who knows whether that's right? Who thinks the current set of lists and their usage is right? I only point out my opinion. Okay, sometimes it's influenced by hearsay, but I hope that's okay. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:02:57 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors right now. One problem here is that we need active sponsors for every special field of interest. Basically, every SIG, such as Java, OCaml, MinGW, ... * This year 83 people have been sponsored. * 191 people are waiting to be sponsored. Is the following page wrong? http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html * Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ. Probably the same reasons as with the normal review requests. Sometimes reviews have stalled because of bundled libs, licensing troubles, missing deps, waiting for upstream. http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEW.html * Oldest change on BZs waiting for sponsor is from 2010. Which ticket is that? Above page lists four tickets from 2011, but all have changed in 2013. It would be nice if sponsors can sponsor at least one packager per year. That's mandatory already, although some sponsors don't agree with it: Proposal for revitalizing the packager sponsorship model https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/839 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:38:18 +0200 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: Is the following page wrong? http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html I see 59 people on that list. (many have more than 1 review they have filed) Not sure where the 191 number comes from? There's 194 bugs open against FE_NEEDSPONSOR, so I guess this is where that number comes from? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]
On 10/21/2013 07:48 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of devel list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago. What is the reason? More people avoiding MLs like the plague? Too many MLs? Yes, that's one aspect. Too many communication channels other than email? May-be, but I doubt this. Actually I think many new packagers aren't aware about the MLs and might be confused about which MLs to subscribe. I also believe contributors are unsubscribing from some MLs because they consider some of them to be polluted by bureaucratic chatter - It's what e.g. I consider the test and the perl-devel ML to be. Or they realize that Fedora lacks a culture of free mindedness and tolerance? A couple of years ago, one would be informed well when following devel list. This has changed. I share this experience and perception. devel@ has developed from a discussion forum to discuss development issues into a proclamation/announcement list. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 17/10/13 15:56, مصعب الزعبي wrote: LOL ^_^ I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! On the other side, just complaining won't help anyone. Given, everybody is more or less overloaded, it would help you in reviewing others packages as well, even IF you're NOT in packager group yet. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group lists, how to get sponsored. Just waiting might be a solution, but probably not the fastest one. Matthias -- Matthias Runge mru...@matthias-runge.de -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I think better solution is everyone (sponsors, packagers, packager candidates) must go one step further. We all have important works to do outside of Fedora Project and one cannot pretend special attentions from others quickly. I myself thought that wait a sponsor just for my package review was right way to become a packager. Absolutely not; becoming a good packager also means to know rushing yourself into other reviews. One needs to put yourself in the game, before all. But also I think a faster notice among sponsors can be useful when a packager candidate already gets moving so that he/she can be helped in his/her new experiences. - -- - Antonio Trande mailto: sagit...@fedoraproject.org http://www.fedoraos.worpress.com https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Sagitter GPG Key: D400D6C4 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.15 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJSY9JPAAoJED2vIvfUANbEoSoP+wTOY0yg2t8t48Y4h8jvnW+b XpvNWBOaTHhsubUVgYp6bfbDSy6pCPwjGSRUWIVBADqFPm6rimUR4OMrFUAbn13p RGCvS2xe+DR1OXBv74mTVMfRnAjNszFUql66tWDZ8wIjoXpuX+J2SB2XRAmOf/QP 2VBUeTNGV+P1hNJtaUO+O+7jw1K/ReEXNyuIe3gIBb6lF+pNCN5r2G9qdMXtxMhB sm39WKUQFjfP09YsjdRr2N6Bz9tSKfNHskQCmvWKRhCZJYxmuF7ZFFSbVg4TzI3D MAx0fyDi+h68VHdlhIxg7f5MQdWLum/gjGn4quLBMXsEBObT7kptbd46+vC/PjiS C2U9wmohFtTwJfJRH6jcMy0wGqrfstNsKKk6buF+5tm1qXAMDck6MzzFHBJvFV9h 36ApVaHVpTFnU72+FOudESGWQ/TQgMT6pcxLJzJuvFkajMr5Cvot6xQRodk3AIJP tSHUPg0Cro6XopBQaETNOpMrKyVkzq5l/kLpVWuRKrO/hj9cHAEMk5E4Z/+ejHD1 mzyzsED328diYADcgk51A3k+4OX21MzaWavrnwfDvUxtVGFUwAgvV2h2IJ6monAo x33d/i4gTRySlJeJ0tDz1T/7JYXmdEHurFBm60Gobuv279NDWuAf/FesqZUhwPmG Uo7HFYu9IIVdMe0UXDO+ =LsiK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
Hi, as a first advice: Please do not top post: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#If_You_Are_Replying_to_a_Message On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 03:56:00PM +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote: LOL ^_^ I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! If you provided links to your review together with a list of preliminary reviews, you can increase your chances to find a sponsor. Regards Till -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
*snip* https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group lists, how to get sponsored. Just waiting might be a solution, but probably not the fastest one. Matthias -- I don't agree with this. The sponsorship process is as much an introduction to the community as a verification that someone understands the guidelines. It was valuable to me as a new packager in this context, and there is a lot of potential for the process to foster a sense of collaboration and community. --Pete -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:31:49 -0600 Ken Dreyer ktdre...@ktdreyer.com wrote: If this really is the consensus of the Fedora community, then I would prefer that the guidelines on the wiki be specifically amended to require this. IMHO the language in the guidelines is simply too vague about this point. Yeah, we should clarify where things are not clear... Of course, this whole mailing list thread is about the lack of sponsors' time and resources, and with that in mind, maybe such a guideline change would be going in the opposite direction of where Fedora needs to be. I don't good answer. I think this has morphed slowly over time. Only sponsors can review initial packages from people who are not yet sponsored. time passes Packager(who is not a sponsor): Hey, Sponsor, can you help out and sponsor foo? They would be great to sponsor. time passes Packager(who is not a sponsor): I see you don't have much time these days, How about I work with foo and get their package in good shape and teach them things and you can just come along and check things. time passes Packager(who is not a sponsor): I'm not a sponsor, but I'll review everything and set the review to approved hoping some sponsor sees it and comes along and sponsors the person. IMHO, it's GREAT if people help initial packagers who aren't sponsored yet improve their packages and learn. That said, I think it's bad when they say they go through officical review steps on such a package. It confuses the new person, makes it drop off the list of packages that need review, etc. How about anytime someone (who is not a sponsor) has helped someone not yet sponsored and thinks their package(s) are ready for official review/sponsorship, they mail the pool of sponsors asking for someone to step up and do so? Or we add another state sponsors could query for this? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:22:58 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:31:49 -0600 Ken Dreyer wrote: If this really is the consensus of the Fedora community, then I would prefer that the guidelines on the wiki be specifically amended to require this. IMHO the language in the guidelines is simply too vague about this point. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Review_Process#Reviewer | If it is the first package of a Contributor, the Reviewer must be | in the Sponsor group and be willing to sponsor that Contributor. Hard to read that wrong. But although it's a MUST, not all new packagers join that way. There have always been ways to get sponsored without submitting a package into the review queue. For those, who submit a single package (with mistakes) and wait patiently for a sponsor, joining becomes much more difficult. It becomes even more difficult, if the person waits several months without even attempting to contribute a single review or a self-review of the submitted package. Other people (not limited to Red Hat employees) simply request becoming a co-maintainer in the sponsor's trac instance and sort of get blanket approval, i.e. some sponsor quickly accepts them without that they have to prove knowing the packaging guidelines or contributing a few reviews. Yeah, we should clarify where things are not clear... A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling the community is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like the plague, some people lurking on IRC only, other people preferring web based forums, others addressing topics in personal blogs or during hallway meetings (and similar face-to-face situations). I've added a long comment to the following blog post: http://eischmann.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/does-fedora-project-want-new-packagers/ How about anytime someone (who is not a sponsor) has helped someone not yet sponsored and thinks their package(s) are ready for official review/sponsorship, they mail the pool of sponsors asking for someone to step up and do so? Or we add another state sponsors could query for this? In many cases, I don't find it easy to tell whether a new package submitter knows the packaging guidelines (or looks them up actively at all) or follows the Join process for packagers. A few words in bugzilla could be helpful, or else the potential sponsor needs to ask lots of questions (in bugzilla or in private mail) only to learn that basic tools, such as rpmlint, have not been used. If there's only a single package to evaluate and the submitters doesn't have any interest in co-maintaining some other package, that doesn't make it easy either. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On 17/10/13 06:45 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: However, activity log shows that you've assigned the ticket to yourself on 2013-03-14 without being a sponsor. The first submitted package of a new packager must be reviewed and approved by a sponsor. Assigning the ticket could result in other sponsors ignoring the ticket and assuming that somebody _is working_ on it already. The review hasn't been too simple either so far, judging by the number of delays and comments by _several_ people over a period of several months. Delay is due to personal reasons from the submitter hence longer months than expected. Unfortunately, the guideline lacked clarification for reviewing a package from new contributor by the sponsor, I attempted to apply for that position which sadly failed so the process was stuck. Given the shortage of sponsors, this example shows that a better approach will be required when it comes to new submitter and non-sponsored reviewers so such issue will never occur again in the future. -- Luya Tshimbalanga Graphic Web Designer E: l...@fedoraproject.org W: http://www.coolest-storm.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
Dan Horák wrote: I think it was me who promised to sponsor Peter. Being fully loaded with other work I waited for seeing the plus set for the review flag. Well, the idea is that the sponsor is the one who sets the fedora-review+ flag for the new contributor's first review. I know the process is often subtly subverted, but that was the original idea… Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Dan Horák wrote: I think it was me who promised to sponsor Peter. Being fully loaded with other work I waited for seeing the plus set for the review flag. Well, the idea is that the sponsor is the one who sets the fedora-review+ flag for the new contributor's first review. I know the process is often subtly subverted, but that was the original idea… If this really is the consensus of the Fedora community, then I would prefer that the guidelines on the wiki be specifically amended to require this. IMHO the language in the guidelines is simply too vague about this point. Of course, this whole mailing list thread is about the lack of sponsors' time and resources, and with that in mind, maybe such a guideline change would be going in the opposite direction of where Fedora needs to be. I don't good answer. - Ken -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:19:11PM -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Considering the reporter is also a entrepreneur who took the time to port some of upstream packages to Fedora, I am utterly disappointed by the lack of communication from the sponsors for a simple task. The fact the reporter vainly tried to ask for sponsorship leaves a negative impression as if the communication are uninterested to bring more contributors outside Fedora. I agree; this is a problem. (In general, I think the beg-for-review-swaps system is not friendly to new contributors.) I see that you applied for sponsorship https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/ticket/90 but there wasn't enough activity on the ticket to make the approval threshold. Maybe something which attracts more activity from sponsors in reviewing new sponsors would help? -- Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fedora Cloud Architect ☁☁☁ mat...@fedoraproject.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:19:11PM -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Considering the reporter is also a entrepreneur who took the time to port some of upstream packages to Fedora, I am utterly disappointed by the lack of communication from the sponsors for a simple task. The fact the reporter vainly tried to ask for sponsorship leaves a negative impression as if the communication are uninterested to bring more contributors outside Fedora. I agree; this is a problem. (In general, I think the beg-for-review-swaps system is not friendly to new contributors.) I see that you applied for sponsorship https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/ticket/90 but there wasn't enough activity on the ticket to make the approval threshold. Indeed, maybe worth pinging some of the folks that didn't vote +1 in that ticket, to help out. karma. :) I could possibly look it over and help with sponsorship, but my free time will be limited at least until this weekend. -- Rex -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Hello developers and packagers, I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz #913289. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289 related to the sponsorship. The review was done. One of sponsors promised to take care of that step which never came to fruition. I cannot find such a promise in the ticket. However, activity log shows that you've assigned the ticket to yourself on 2013-03-14 without being a sponsor. The first submitted package of a new packager must be reviewed and approved by a sponsor. Assigning the ticket could result in other sponsors ignoring the ticket and assuming that somebody _is working_ on it already. The review hasn't been too simple either so far, judging by the number of delays and comments by _several_ people over a period of several months. It has been more than two months the original reporter asked if there is a sponsored packager willing to take over the package. Not too good, because we need more packagers rather than fewer who try to handle a growing number of packages. The way to get sponsored seemed harder because not everybody has the luxury to wait on IRC channel[2]. New contributors have tendency to use mail list so better clarifications are needed. And again, the system doesn't scale if adding packagers doesn't result in more people doing reviews. There are submitters in the needsponsor queue, who wait for a dozen packages without spending any time at all on trying to review them or contributing a few reviews on similar packages in the queue. [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group There are various ways how to get sponsored. Using IRC is not mandatory. Contributing a few reviews is not mandatory either. Performing a self-review of an own package can be helpful, though. Especially if a review request for the package has been opened several weeks/months ago. So, if a reviewer or a sponsor runs into the review request, the package is ready and passes essential tests, such as with rpmlint, mock, fedora-review. I don't think that is too much of a requirement. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:45:01 +0200 Michael Schwendt mschwe...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: Hello developers and packagers, I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz #913289. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289 related to the sponsorship. The review was done. One of sponsors promised to take care of that step which never came to fruition. I cannot find such a promise in the ticket. I think it was me who promised to sponsor Peter. Being fully loaded with other work I waited for seeing the plus set for the review flag. Dan However, activity log shows that you've assigned the ticket to yourself on 2013-03-14 without being a sponsor. The first submitted package of a new packager must be reviewed and approved by a sponsor. Assigning the ticket could result in other sponsors ignoring the ticket and assuming that somebody _is working_ on it already. The review hasn't been too simple either so far, judging by the number of delays and comments by _several_ people over a period of several months. It has been more than two months the original reporter asked if there is a sponsored packager willing to take over the package. Not too good, because we need more packagers rather than fewer who try to handle a growing number of packages. The way to get sponsored seemed harder because not everybody has the luxury to wait on IRC channel[2]. New contributors have tendency to use mail list so better clarifications are needed. And again, the system doesn't scale if adding packagers doesn't result in more people doing reviews. There are submitters in the needsponsor queue, who wait for a dozen packages without spending any time at all on trying to review them or contributing a few reviews on similar packages in the queue. [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group There are various ways how to get sponsored. Using IRC is not mandatory. Contributing a few reviews is not mandatory either. Performing a self-review of an own package can be helpful, though. Especially if a review request for the package has been opened several weeks/months ago. So, if a reviewer or a sponsor runs into the review request, the package is ready and passes essential tests, such as with rpmlint, mock, fedora-review. I don't think that is too much of a requirement. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
RE: Lack of response about sponsorship
LOL ^_^ I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700 From: l...@fedoraproject.org To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Lack of response about sponsorship Hello developers and packagers, I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz #913289. related to the sponsorship. The review was done. One of sponsors promised to take care of that step which never came to fruition. It has been more than two months the original reporter asked if there is a sponsored packager willing to take over the package. Considering the reporter is also a entrepreneur who took the time to port some of upstream packages to Fedora, I am utterly disappointed by the lack of communication from the sponsors for a simple task. The fact the reporter vainly tried to ask for sponsorship leaves a negative impression as if the communication are uninterested to bring more contributors outside Fedora. The way to get sponsored seemed harder because not everybody has the luxury to wait on IRC channel[2]. New contributors have tendency to use mail list so better clarifications are needed. I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Ref: [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-August/187357.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- Luya Tshimbalanga Graphic Web Designer E: l...@fedoraproject.org W: http://www.coolest-storm.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Lack of response about sponsorship
On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:56:00 +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote: LOL ^_^ I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! Not true. You've had feedback from a sponsor already, but they are not marked as such in bugzilla, so you don't know that it is a potential sponsor for you. Further, you've submitted the requests no earlier than October. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Lack of response about sponsorship
Hello developers and packagers, I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz #913289. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=913289 related to the sponsorship. The review was done. One of sponsors promised to take care of that step which never came to fruition. It has been more than two months the original reporter asked if there is a sponsored packager willing to take over the package. Considering the reporter is also a entrepreneur who took the time to port some of upstream packages to Fedora, I am utterly disappointed by the lack of communication from the sponsors for a simple task. The fact the reporter vainly tried to ask for sponsorship leaves a negative impression as if the communication are uninterested to bring more contributors outside Fedora. The way to get sponsored seemed harder because not everybody has the luxury to wait on IRC channel[2]. New contributors have tendency to use mail list so better clarifications are needed. I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Ref: [1] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-August/187357.html [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group -- Luya Tshimbalanga Graphic Web Designer E: l...@fedoraproject.org W: http://www.coolest-storm.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
