Upstream developers mainting there own package in Fedora and nothing else

[Michael Schwendt]

On Mon, 05 May 2008 12:36:49 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:

> > If you agree with an upstream developer on maintaining a package in Fedora,
> > either alone or with you as co-maintainer, does it matter how you do it?
> > 
> 
> Well there always is this problem of someone becoming malicious, I guess if 
> someone really wants to he can easily just follow the normal process, so do a 
> couple of new packages and a couple of reviews, but this is lowering the 
> barrier to entry, which I'm fine with, but I atleast want others to know about 
> this and shout "NOOO" before continuing with this.

That belongs into my [very] old series of queries related to "sponsor
responsibilities", which is still unanswered because it's a complex
topic. All the burden is on the shoulders of the sponsors. It's completely
up to their judgement whom to sponsor, whether to interview a new
contributor prior to approval, whether to collect and compare personal
information retrieved from web search engines, whether to insist on seeing
a demonstration of packaging skills during review of several packages,
whether to serve as a proxy for a newbie packager, whether and when to
trust somebody from the other side of the world, and so on. And still a
contributor might become hostile after months and delete group-writable
files in cvs under the umbrella of a "sorry, fat fingers" excuse. Then
it's the sponsor's duty to repair the damage.

[The new FAS is not nice to sponsors either. They need to load the
full cvsextras members list and search for the account to sponsor.
Something that resulted in time-outs the last two times I did it.
For sponsors, there doesn't seem to be a list of people you sponsored.]