On Sun, 2009-01-25 at 16:23 +0100, Robert Scheck wrote:
Uberpackagers/provenpackagers should be persons well known to the
community
and having some presence at packagers. So a person only having 5 packages
gets a uberpackager/provenpackager, something really goes wrong IMHO. Yes,
we've changed that, but we should not make the status depend on packages or
some time at all, but on presence and knowledge of the person.
That's who we're starting the group with, the current package sponsors.
People whom we trust to bring new contributors into the packager group,
we're now also going to trust them to bring new packagers into the
provenpackager group.
The other thing is, which is much more important, that not a single person
can sponsor a uberpackager/provenpackager. I was thinking about some kind
of "voting". Of course not a voting that kind, that all current sponsors
are getting notified via e-mail, but the possibility, that every sponsor
can add +1/0/-1 in FAS to a guy wanting to get uberpackager/provenpackager.
And if "charma" of that candidate is +5 or +10 in the end, the guy gets
uberpackager/provenpackager. If a sponsor is doing nothing, it's just +0/
-0, but the sponsors should not get bothered about each request of a new
candidate.
Interesting thought, I'd like to see a full proposal brought to FESCo
over this matter.
Anyway for that we IMHO must reset the current uberpackager/provenpackager
list and restart with an empty one. Otherwise that doesn't make sense to me
and it doesn't change nor solve our problems we introduced in the past...
We're starting with the existing group of people who have already been
vetted by FESCo, that is the current sponsors.
--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca:
http://identi.ca/jkeating