Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 20:23:22 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: > [...] my idea was just that some kind of reminder if no-one > takes the ball , however that is defined (comment from sponsor, assigned > to sponsor, ...) within some time. That wouldn't be helpful. There would only be a notification about

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On 10/27/2013 07:43 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:43:57 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: Or, email not all FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets but only those which are deemed too old to be OK. When would that be? A recurring problem in the review queue is "long response time". That is, it t

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 13:43:57 +0100, Alec Leamas wrote: > Or, email not all FE-NEEDSPONSOR tickets but only those which are > deemed too old to be OK. When would that be? A recurring problem in the review queue is "long response time". That is, it takes several weeks (or even longer) till the

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On 10/27/2013 12:46 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:54:44 + (UTC), Ben Boeckel wrote: I also wouldn't mind seeing a list of FE-NEEDSPONSOR bugs be emailed to devel@ (similar to the ownership change email). Open reviews might be nice as well, but maybe just FE-NEEDSPONSOR

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Sun, 27 Oct 2013 01:54:44 + (UTC), Ben Boeckel wrote: > Well, there is FE-NEEDSPONSOR. Could we add a checkbox to this page[1] > for needing a sponsor? A new packager might not know about > FE-NEEDSPONSOR and getting it right up front would help, I'd think. > [1]https://bugzilla.redhat.com

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Sat, 19 Oct, 2013 at 22:22:58 GMT, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > How about anytime someone (who is not a sponsor) has helped someone not > yet sponsored and thinks their package(s) are ready for official > review/sponsorship, they mail the pool of sponsors asking for someone > to step up and do so? Or we

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 10/25/2013 11:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 17:41 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: I'd love to hear better suggestions the main problem seems to be "it's so busy no one goes there anymore". There is a rather obvious gaping logical flaw in that one ;) Not quite. Complai

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 10/26/2013 02:14 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 02:11 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: Adam says that devel is relevant to "*developers* (or rather, packagers)". Yet there is the "packaging" list, too. Quote from Oct 16th: "I don't know whether this belongs to the packaging o

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 10/25/2013 04:48 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:02:23PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: The people who've pointed out the confusion about which list to choose when haven't drunk away their memory and could join here, but that will be fruitless if an instance such as FESCo

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Sat, 2013-10-26 at 02:11 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Adam says that devel is relevant to "*developers* (or rather, packagers)". > Yet there is the "packaging" list, too. Quote from Oct 16th: > "I don't know whether this belongs to the packaging or devel list," Now to me, THAT seems like a

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

rom Oct 16th: "I don't know whether this belongs to the packaging or devel list," Not even devel-announce is used consistently. Some people post version bump announcements there. If that were done for the entire package collection, forget about the "LOW TRAFFIC" mention

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > mailman topics/keywords features to sort into meaningful sub-categories. I >> > understand that hyperkitty will make this nice and easy, but it's also not >> > really ver

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Oct 25, 2013 3:09 PM, "Michael Schwendt" wrote: > > On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too; > > Unlike "devel", the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it? > > Could you imagine turning

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 17:41 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > I'd love to hear better suggestions the main problem seems to be "it's > so busy no one goes there anymore". There is a rather obvious gaping logical flaw in that one ;) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twit

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 10:41:12AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > mailman topics/keywords features to sort into meaningful sub-categories. I > > understand that hyperkitty will make this nice and easy, but it's also not > > really very hard just as email. Note that you can subscribe to just cert

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 23:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too; > > Unlike "devel", the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it? > > Could you imagine

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 13:54:27 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > I'm sure the docs team talks about stuff in Rawhide occasionally too; Unlike "devel", the docs list is related to Documentation only, isn't it? Could you imagine turning "devel" into a less general list? Is "devel" the catch-all for an

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 21:43 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:28 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > Ever since I've joined, > > which is ohgod nearly five years ago now, the split has seemed > > reasonably clear and non-controversial, and I really can't recall anyone > >

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:40:28 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > Ever since I've joined, > which is ohgod nearly five years ago now, the split has seemed > reasonably clear and non-controversial, and I really can't recall anyone > being particularly confused about it, so perhaps this is a problem whic

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 10:48 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:02:23PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > The people who've pointed out the confusion about which list to choose > > when haven't drunk away their memory and could join here, but that will be > > fruitless if an

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Fri, 2013-10-25 at 16:02 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > The split and intended usage has been questioned by several community > members for many years, even already when the lists where still on Red > Hat's servers. > > Locating such comments with a search engine isn't easy. > https://lists

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 16:17:14 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > I would think that if we are in a situation where people who do development > don't subscribe to the devel list because of 'energy' reasons > (disillusionment, feelings of either a) pointlessness b) fait-accompli, > etc.), then just movi

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 04:02:23PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > The people who've pointed out the confusion about which list to choose > when haven't drunk away their memory and could join here, but that will be > fruitless if an instance such as FESCo decides otherwise. So, here's what I'd li

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 18:23:49 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 18:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > > The intended usage of "test" list has always been a problem. Once in a > > while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to > > work on a change acti

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Tue, 2013-10-22 at 07:01 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/21/2013 07:48 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > >>> As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of "devel" list. > >>> There's too much traffic on that list.

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 17:34 +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > On 10/21/2013 05:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > So, discussing Test Updates for stable dist releases belongs onto which > > list? > > According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA > release test topic

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, 2013-10-21 at 18:08 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > The intended usage of "test" list has always been a problem. Once in a > while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to > work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for > Rawhide? Its descript

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Sat, 2013-10-19 at 16:22 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > to step up and do so? Or we add another state sponsors could query for > this? I think this would very much be the best option. For instance, a couple of us have been reviewing the gooey-karma package (like easy-karma, but with a GUI!): http

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 08:11:08 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > >Several have not been displayed in the review queue, none has been displayed > >on the needsponsor list, and Bruno uses three different submitter email > >addresses in bugzilla. > > Me Bruno? No, another Bruno, previously referred to

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 13:17:53 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: Several have not been displayed in the review queue, none has been displayed on the needsponsor list, and Bruno uses three different submitter email addresses in bugzilla. Me Bruno? I should be just using br...@wolff.to these d

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

> > See an example of mindi-busybox, packager from HP still can't get > > sponsored after 5 years. > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=476234 > > It has had "fedora-review" flag set to '?', which means somebody > is working on it. I've cleaned up the tickets and their dependencie

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Thu, 24 Oct 2013 13:01:18 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: > Errr... > > I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him > quickly as well. Well, people are different, and it may not always happen "quickly", if the package suffers from issues and/or the Fedora specific stuff

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On 10/24/2013 07:01 AM, Christopher Meng wrote: Errr... I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him quickly as well. Why should we? I don't see why this should be of any relevance. Somebody being involved into upstream only is an indication for somebody being familiar w

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

Errr... I just hope if a packager is also its upstream, we can sponsor him quickly as well. Also applied to "comaintainer as upstream". And if people coming from some Big Company like Oracle/HP, we can sponsor them as well as normal guys. See an example of mindi-busybox, packager from HP still ca

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said: > > As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of "devel" > > list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in > > October. Even if one uses filtering, the recurring task of skimming > > over the devel list folder is tiresome, s

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 08:26:54PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Correct. Less lists (or the same lists) and with a more well-defined > target group and description. So, in the not so far future, we'll have mailman3 and hyperkitty, and we want to migrate the lists to that. That switchover point

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 08:59:28 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > On 10/21/2013 09:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > >>* Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ. > > Probably the same reasons as with the "normal" review requests. > > Sometimes reviews have stalled becaus

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On 17/10/13 05:30 AM, Matthew Miller wrote: I agree; this is a problem. (In general, I think the beg-for-review-swaps system is not friendly to new contributors.) I see that you applied for sponsorship https://fedorahosted.org/packager-sponsors/ticket/90 but there wasn't enough activity on the ti

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On 10/21/2013 09:38 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: * Oldest request is from 2008(!) - but there are recent work on this BZ. Probably the same reasons as with the "normal" review requests. Sometimes reviews have stalled because of bundled libs, licensing troubles, missing deps, waiting for upstre

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 10/21/2013 07:48 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of "devel" list. There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. This is way down from the peak 5-7 years a

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:38:18 +0200 Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Is the following page wrong? > http://fedoraproject.org/PackageReviewStatus/NEEDSPONSOR.html I see 59 people on that list. (many have more than 1 review they have filed) Not sure where the 191 number comes from? There's 194 bugs ope

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:02:57 +0200, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message > > would suffice to let know about the status. Is > > there a better way to address this concern to avoid repe

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:47:12 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 10/21/2013 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: > >> According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA > >> release > >> test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the u

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 11:57:06 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > I am not saying shut-up but I am saying that I am confused by what you > mean. First you seem to advocate more lists, That could be a misunderstanding. Have I've phrased something very poorly. Then please tell and give me a chance

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:16:53 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On 10/21/2013 06:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > >>> A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and > >>> coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the f

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 21 October 2013 11:48, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > > As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of "devel" > list. > > > There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. > > > > This is way down

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:07:25 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > As a first step, I suggest clearing up the intended usage of "devel" list. > > There's too much traffic on that list. 792 messages so far in October. > > This is way down from the peak 5-7 years ago. What is the reason? More people a

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 10/21/2013 05:44 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote: "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. If that's true then the updates-testing mail for N and N-1 need to go t

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. If that's true then the updates-testing mail for N and N-1 need to go to the user list. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.f

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 10/21/2013 05:25 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: So, discussing Test Updates for stable dist releases belongs onto which list? According to some in the QA community ( at least in the past ) any GA release test topic ( like update testing ) belongs on the user list. JBG -- devel mailing list d

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 16:23:29 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > > The intended usage of "test" list has always been a problem. Once in a > > while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to > > work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for > > Rawhide

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 21 October 2013 11:08, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:00:59AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > Don't we have this same conversation every two years? With pretty much > the > > same questions and feeling of disconnectedness? We fix a couple of > things, > > and then ge

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 10/21/2013 06:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling "the community" is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mail

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:00:59AM -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > Don't we have this same conversation every two years? With pretty much the > same questions and feeling of disconnectedness? We fix a couple of things, > and then get back to doing stuff and then wake up and go "where did > eve

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 06:08:09PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > I have this same feeling. I think we need to fix it; do you have any > > thoughts or ideas as to how? > If people hate email lists in general (or the number of messages posted > to them), it cannot be fixed. Hmmm; I don't know i

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Good idea. What items could we move to announce that would be more > useful for folks that don't have as much time/energy to skim the main > list? > I'm assuming you're referring to the devel-announce list, and not the general announce list,

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 18:08:09 +0200 Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > > > A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and > > > coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling "the > > > community" is fragmented too much

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 10/21/2013 04:08 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: The intended usage of "test" list has always been a problem. Once in a while, somebody points that out, but there's nobody (no leadership) to work on a change actively. Is it only for Test releases or also for Rawhide? Its description is vague. Is t

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 09:52:32 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > > A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and > > coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling "the community" > > is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like > > the plague, some peo

Re: communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On 21 October 2013 07:52, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 01:42:37AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and > > coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling "the community" > > is fragmented too much. With some

communications and community [was Re: Lack of response about sponsorship]

On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 01:42:37AM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > A few years ago we've been much better at talking about things and > coming to a conclusion. Nowadays I have the feeling "the community" > is fragmented too much. With some people avoiding mailing-lists like > the plague, some peop

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

Hi, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > On 10/21/2013 03:28 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý > msu...@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: >> >> I understand each one

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On 10/21/2013 03:28 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote: Hi, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý mailto:msu...@redhat.com>> wrote: On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know ab

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

Hi, On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Miroslav Suchý wrote: > On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > >> I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message >> would suffice to let know about the status. Is >> there a better way to address this concern to avoid rep

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On 10/17/2013 05:19 AM, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: I understand each one of us is busy with their life but a simple message would suffice to let know about the status. Is there a better way to address this concern to avoid repeating it in the future? Some numbers FYI: * We have 117 sponsors rig

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On 20/10/13 22:01, Pete Travis wrote: > > *snip* >> >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group >> lists, how to get sponsored. Just waiting might be a solution, but >> probably not the fastest one. >> >> Matthias >> >> -- >> > I don't agree with this. The spo

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

*snip* > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group > lists, how to get sponsored. Just waiting might be a solution, but > probably not the fastest one. > > Matthias > > -- > I don't agree with this. The sponsorship process is as much an introduction to the commu

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

Hi, as a first advice: Please do not top post: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines#If_You_Are_Replying_to_a_Message On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 03:56:00PM +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote: > LOL ^_^ > > I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! If you provided links

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I think better solution is "everyone (sponsors, packagers, packager candidates) must go one step further". We all have important works to do outside of Fedora Project and one cannot pretend "special attentions" from others quickly. I myself thought th

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On 17/10/13 15:56, مصعب الزعبي wrote: > LOL ^_^ > > I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! > On the other side, just complaining won't help anyone. Given, everybody is more or less overloaded, it would help you in reviewing others packages as well, even IF you're NOT in

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On 17/10/13 06:45 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: However, activity log shows that you've assigned the ticket to yourself on 2013-03-14 without being a sponsor. The first submitted package of a new packager must be reviewed and approved by a sponsor. Assigning the ticket could result in other spons

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Sat, 19 Oct 2013 16:22:58 -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:31:49 -0600 Ken Dreyer wrote: > > > If this really is the consensus of the Fedora community, then I would > > prefer that the guidelines on the wiki be specifically amended to > > require this. IMHO the language in th

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 16:31:49 -0600 Ken Dreyer wrote: > If this really is the consensus of the Fedora community, then I would > prefer that the guidelines on the wiki be specifically amended to > require this. IMHO the language in the guidelines is simply too vague > about this point. Yeah, we sh

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Dan Horák wrote: >> I think it was me who promised to sponsor Peter. Being fully loaded >> with other work I waited for seeing the plus set for the review flag. > > Well, the idea is that the sponsor is the one who sets the fedora-review+ > fl

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

Dan Horák wrote: > I think it was me who promised to sponsor Peter. Being fully loaded > with other work I waited for seeing the plus set for the review flag. Well, the idea is that the sponsor is the one who sets the fedora-review+ flag for the new contributor's first review. I know the process

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:56:00 +0200, مصعب الزعبي wrote: > LOL ^_^ > > I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! Not true. You've had feedback from a sponsor already, but they are not marked as such in bugzilla, so you don't know that it is a potential sponsor for you. Furth

RE: Lack of response about sponsorship

LOL ^_^ I have 7 review requests , 5 of them ready , but no sponsors !!! Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700 From: l...@fedoraproject.org To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Subject: Lack of response about sponsorship Hello developers and packagers, I recently

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Thu, 17 Oct 2013 15:45:01 +0200 Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > > Hello developers and packagers, > > > > I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz > > #913289. >

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 20:19:11 -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Hello developers and packagers, > > I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz #913289. > > related to the sponsorship. The review was done. One of sponsors > pro

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:19:11PM -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: >> Considering the reporter is also a entrepreneur who took the time to >> port some of upstream packages to Fedora, I am utterly disappointed >> by the lack of communication from the sponsors for a simple t

Re: Lack of response about sponsorship

On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 08:19:11PM -0700, Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > Considering the reporter is also a entrepreneur who took the time to > port some of upstream packages to Fedora, I am utterly disappointed > by the lack of communication from the sponsors for a simple task. > The fact the reporter

Lack of response about sponsorship

Hello developers and packagers, I recently received an email from the reporter[1] from rhbz #913289. related to the sponsorship. The review was done. One of sponsors promised to take care of that step which never came to fruition. It has been