On 04/26/2012 04:20 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
"MS" == Michael Schwendt<mschwe...@gmail.com> writes:
MS> Forcing sponsors to fulfill such criteria is the wrong way IMO. It
MS> may result in even more blanket-approval sponsorships.
I don't happen to agree, but at some point shouldn't sponsors do
something?
Not necessarily. Normally, they once sponsored or at least tried to.
[Will be news to some folks listening, but finding somebody to sponsor
equally difficult as finding a sponsor is to newcomer packagers.]
Otherwise why do they have permission?
Because they once wanted to sponsor somebody, but meanwhile haven't
found opportunities to sponsor?
May-be they are (temporarily) distracted from reviewing, may-be they
haven't found anybody to sponsor?
What do you suggest
as expanded criteria for keeping sponsor access?
None. Do not expire it ... otherwise you are at risk to loose all those
sponsors, who did valueable works in the past and to accumulate low
quality sponsors.
and sponsorship is lost by vote?
Only in exceptional cases and as last resort if a sponsor demonstrates
lack of packaging skills.
Or are you saying it
should never be lost once gained?
Yes.
Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
