And I login with my FAS ID and cannot "Take" the package since I am not a packager. So I ask again what steps am I missing here? I want to take over packaging something that is about to be removed from Fedora Linux since it has been orphaned, I have signed the agreements, I have asked to become a packager, and this is actually the second package I am trying to take over.

> But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful > in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming > at it from the position of submitting a new package: > And it tells me to read a document that doesn't apparently exist anymore.

> https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_the... > > Basically you need to find somebody to sponsor you as a > packager - normally that happens as part of having your first > package review but obviously that doesn't work when you want > to take over an existing package. So you see what I was talking about so many (years?!?!) ago, then recently too on this list. It is a common thing it seems that once a person steps up to ask for sponsorship something seems to happen. I am struck by the first line of your response "You say you have "asked to become a packager" but what exactly do you mean by that?" Well, quite simply what I stated, but yet I am being questioned about my sincereity and credibility immediately.

So back to what I was trying to say in my conversation here about some tool for assessing the prospective newbies like me who want to help but need a sponsor, I was thinking of an app that tests your knowledge and the discussion went towards a generic test package to show packaging knowledge with, then make sponsoring come easier for sponsors. Because this seems to be really the crux of the matter, trust or lack of it.

On Sun, 2021-11-21 at 15:08 +0000, Tom Hughes wrote: > > That's why I gave a link to the old version from the wiki history > before it was replaced by a pointer to the new page. > It did help for some info. Thank you. > > > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_the... > > > > > > Basically you need to find somebody to sponsor you as a > > > packager - normally that happens as part of having your first > > > package review but obviously that doesn't work when you want > > > to take over an existing package. > > > > So you see what I was talking about so many (years?!?!) ago, then > > recently too on this list. It is a common thing it seems that once > > a > > person steps up to ask for sponsorship something seems to happen. I > > am > > struck by the first line of your response "You say you have "asked > > to > > become a packager" but what exactly do you mean by that?" Well, > > quite > > simply what I stated, but yet I am being questioned about my > > sincereity > > and credibility immediately. > > I wasn't questioning your credibility, I was just confused because > there's no formal place to lodge such a request as far as I know > other > than a review ticket blocking FE-SPONSOR which doesn't apply here. > > I was worried that you had filed some sort of request somewhere > that nobody was looking. > So maybe we have inadvertently found a crack in the process for onboarding package maintainers. > > So back to what I was trying to say in my conversation here about > > some > > tool for assessing the prospective newbies like me who want to help > > but > > need a sponsor, I was thinking of an app that tests your knowledge > > and > > the discussion went towards a generic test package to show > > packaging > > knowledge with, then make sponsoring come easier for sponsors. > > Because > > this seems to be really the crux of the matter, trust or lack of > > it. > > I'm not aware of any previous discussions. I was just answering > the questions you asked in your post today. > > Tom > Again, thank you for taking the time to respond. FWIW I recognize your name from RH and Fedora for some time, ie years, not trying to make anyone feel old but it is what it is. The previous discussion was around onbarding new package maintainers, and the impetus is directly related to the published orphaned packages, and trying to make them not be orphaned if needed still. There is a disconnect between the position taken in the documents around becoming a packager that seems to imply it is as easy as doing steps #1, #2, then #3, which it isn't. Also worth noting is that there is a "dummy onboarding package" that was started by someone on this list as a result of the conversation but I haven't found any continuation of the idea. Regards. Stephen _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

Blaise Pabon kirjoitti 25.11.2021 klo 5.43: <snip>

When the docs were migrated, the intent was, of course, to make them better, not worse. If things have regressed in some way, I would like to fix them. Could you be more specific, in what ways the new docs less useful? Is there some particular content in the retired wiki pages that is not available at docs.fp.o, or what is the problem?

Looking at the current state, one thing I notice it that currently, the "Joining the Package Maintainers" page barely mentions sponsorship. This is fallout from trying to make that page sound less like you have to submit a new package to join, previously it was discussed in the "Adding a new package" section, which is now a separate page. I will add a note with a link in the Joining page summary, so that part is clear from the outset.

The first link is about other docs than the Package Maintainer Docs,

docs.fp.o. The latter two are about Pagure. So if I understand correctly, when you say that the older docs were better, you did not mean the content, but that managing the docs with MediaWiki in the Fedora Wiki was better than the current Antora and Pagure based approach that used at docs.fp.o. Did I get that right?

Thanks read that back then. > But actually I think the old wiki version is much more useful > in explaining how things work, especially if you're not coming > at it from the position of submitting a new package: > And it tells me to read a document that doesn't apparently exist anymore. > https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=How_to_get_sponsored_into_the...

>That page seems substantially (if not completely?) identical to the current >doc at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Spons... Ah you're quite right. That was a google fail on my part - the search that I did on "fedora become a packager" grouped that wiki page under the other docs page I mentioned and I didn't notice that wasn't the page the wiki linked to.

>{{#fedoradocs: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/How_to_Get_Spons... >... but we don't have a consistent policy about when to use it. Should this be read as "I would prefer flagging handle pages that were moved from wiki to docs.fp.o with the redirect macro"? I added

I don't think we have a good process for the situation you're in. If the package you were interested in were entirely new, or if you were reinstating a package which wsa retired (the step beyond "orphan"), you'd file and go through the package review process in bugzilla, and at that point if you hadn't found a sponsor yet, the docs suggest that the sponsor's ticketing system is the next step.

But without those first steps, how do you get there? Probably the most straightforward is to pick one of the other routes -- ask to become a co-maintainer of an existing package, or find something new you're interested in. Or, go through a number of code reviews for similar packages and get to know the folks who are working on those, at which point it should be easy to ask them personally to sponsor you.

I know this feels like kind of _a lot_, when you just want to help out by picking up something that's dropped. But the thing is, once you're in the pcakaging group, you have a lot of latitude to make a lot of technical decisions. It's not so much a matter of "do we trust you as a person" as it is "have you demonstrated that you understand a lot of the nuance and complication of packaging and working in our environment."

If you'd prefer a less-heavy way to just make a package available, we have that too, in Copr. There, you can just get started and do it.

I do think we need to help build a greater pool of people with the required skills, time, and ability to mentor new packagers -- sponsorship with support, not just as a checkbox. We've got some awesome folks who do that, but... it _is_ a special skill and _definitely_ time consuming. So that's an area I know we need to invest in. 

But... I hope the above helps explain how things are now in practice.

-- Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure