Hi, On Fri, Aug 5, 2016 at 1:02 PM, Miroslav Suchý <msu...@redhat.com> wrote: > I had the talk [1] about Fedora Sponsorship process at Flock. And we had > very interesting follow-up discussion. > > We come up with several improvements, which should be easy to implement and > may improve the process a lot. I am posting it here so more people can see > that and join the discussion. > > a) Sponsoree (who apply for package maintainer status) is required to create > Copr project and maintain the package there until he get the package into > Fedora. This should show his endurance to sponsors. It will improve the > morale of the sponsoree as the package is immediately ready for other users. > And it is not wiped after 14 days as scratch builds in Koji.
Few package submitter are using this currently, it will be good improvement for new contributors to use Copr. > > b) fedora-review is run automatically by some bot/script just after review > have been submitted. Can a new utility be written for this as I don't think that long fedora-review output is helpful? Most checks have no markings in them. How can it be helpful to package submitter? > c) Create wiki page with list of sponsors willing to accept new sponsoree. > And list area of expertise of sponsors (e.g. java, python, IoT...). This > will make for sponsoree easier to find right sponsor. Because we have some > sponsors, who are active but are not willing to accept new sponsoree right > now. This can be in addition to above, Why not run a script frequently and check bugzilla and based on common naming CC the related SIG group? e.g. if a package review is submitted whose name contains python then add cc python SIG group that will notify actual group people and someone can find interest and review the package. I know this is in general suggestion but I suppose every SIG is also having some Sponsors who can sponsor new contributor packages. > > d) When sponsors is not active for 2 years [*] - that means not just in > sponsoring work, but there is no activity in BZ, koji, wiki and any other > Fedora service at all (guessed by reading log of fedmsg), then his sponsor > status is removed. We will assume that the sponsor is gone for good. Well good information for other people or FESCo to take action and orphan their packages as well ;-) > > e) When the package review is still not assigned to anybody after 3 months > [*], then 3 [*] random sponsors are added to CC and asked to proceed with > the review despite the fact that it likely doesn't belong to their area of > expertise. This should helps us to get rid of stalled review, which are > waiting for ages to get some sponsor. Was there any discussion on what to do with existing stalled package reviews? I think we should go and close stalled reviews where there is no update from package review submitter for last six months at least. Those where reviewer is not progressing, just remove the assignee and any fedora-review? flag. The review queue I am considering here is FE-NEEDSPONSOR queue and "tickets under review" queue. > Those are the ideas which came up at Flock. Please comment this. And if we > come to some conclusion, I can pass it to FeSCo for approval. > > [1] http://miroslav.suchy.cz/presentations/flock2016/sponsors/#/ > > Please note that the data in this presentation is based only on data I > was able to gather and I am aware the it does not reflect 100% the reality. > But it approximately gives us the order of magnitude of the reality and > approximately ratio. > > [*] I just made up this number. Feel free to discuss appropriate interval. > Regards, Parag. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
