On Fri, Jan 07, 2022 at 11:43:15PM +0200, Otto Urpelainen wrote:
I can give a couple of reasons why just using the packager-sponsors tracker
always would be better. This is from the point of view of somebody who had
to find a sponsor. I am not a sponsor myself, so I do not really know this
looks from that side.
1. The process is currently so complicated that newcomers are frequently
confused and dissuaded by it. Having just a single way would make it
simpler. Of these two options, the single way would have to be the tracker,
because the FE-NEEDSPONSOR method only works for new package submissions.
2. In the tracker, you can write your "letter of application" in the
description, and add all the proof you have. So you can first evaluate
yourself, gather more proof if you think it will be needed, and only submit
an application when you feel you are ready. For FE-NEEDSPONSOR, it is not so
clear. The same thing can be done in the review request comments, of course.
But then the review request and the sponsorship request get mixed up, but
actually they are two different things.
3. It may be just my impression, but the system of adding the FE-NEEDSPONSOR
link feels a bit like "don't call us, we'll call you". Saying that you
can
file an issue and it will be looked at feels more friendly and inviting.
Sure, I agree with all of that. However, If everyone who wanted to be
added to packager was told to file a issue, I am not at all sure we
can promise 'it would be looked at'. All the packager-sponsors tickets
go to everyone in the packager sponsors group, but I've only ever seen a
small fraction of them respond to any tickets. ;( I am not sure if thats
because they don't want to deal with sponsoring co-maintainers (the
current 'reason' to file a ticket there) or something else, but I worry
that it would just result in a big backlog of tickets there. :(
Additionally, I fear it would also leed to 'HI, make me a packager' type
tickets (with no other info). We could of course close those or ask for
more info, but then someone has to manage that.
Apart from co-maintenance, the tracker is also important for the case where
somebody wants to become a pacakger to rescue an orphaned package.
Well, in the past we have asked such folks to file a review request and
get the orphaned package re-reviewed.
To be clear, I'm happy to try and adjust things to make it simpiler as
long as we have buy in from sponsors that they would work with the new
process. :)
Thanks for the feedback... hopefully we can come out of this with a
newer better process.
kevin