sponsorship for package adoption without package submission (was Re: Claiming ownership for thinkpad related packages and pam_mount)

[Michael J Knox]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 16.05.2006, 19:45 +1200 schrieb Michael J Knox:
>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> Am Montag, den 15.05.2006, 13:14 -0500 schrieb Jason L Tibbitts III: 
>>>>>>>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi <kevin-fedora-extras at scrye.com> writes:
>>>> KF> As far as I know we don't have a method to get someone
>>>> KF> sponsored/maintainer status without them having submitted a
>>>> KF> package for review.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think we have a policy, but the procedure is clear.  They can
>>>> just sign up for an account as normal, and the sponsor (assuming
>>>> someone is willing to be one, of course) can upgrade the status as
>>>> normal.
>>>>
>>>> I think the committee should take up the idea of sponsorship for
>>>> package adoption without package submission.
>>> I send the following to the FESCo-List last week (it was in a similar
>>> context). 
>>>
>>> ---
>>> I'll give a example of my currently thoughts: Package foo is orphaned.
>>> bar is interested in taking it over, but is no Extras contributor yet.
>>> Sponsor foobar steps up; he acts as proxy between bar and Extras cvs for
>>> some time (e.g. bar prepares patches, sends them to foobar who applies
>>> them and requests the build). If everything looks okay after some time
>>> bar get sponsored.
>>>
>>> Is this stupid? Biggest problem: How to find sponsors that like to act
>>> as proxy?
>>> ---
>>>
>>> That would mean (a lot of) extra work for the sponsors. And that's why
>>> this idea probably will fail. Does anyone have a better idea?
>> The normal review request process? Potential owners can state that its 
>> an orphaned package and edit the orphan wiki page to include the BZ # of 
>> the review request.
>>
>> Simple enough?
> 
> Sorry, I'm not sure I correctly understood what you meant. You mean that
> a new contributor just files a new review request with an updated
> version of the old package? That's probably to easy if the old package
> is in a good shape.

hrmm.. good point. Perhaps it should just be avoided? Recommend new 
contributors take packages from the wish list or alike?

Michael