Fedora Developer Ranking System v1

[Bill Nottingham]

Warren Togami (wtogami at redhat.com) said: 
> ==================================================
> = Strawman of Fedora Developer Ranking System v1 =
> ==================================================
> This concept document contains only *IDEAS* of why we would want a
> ranking system, and how a ranking system might be useful.  Below are
> only examples.  Please add your ideas to this thread.

Overly complex. Why do you need 7 levels, somewhat obtuse names, etc, when
we realistically have just four groups:

- new/training/probationary members
- members
- sponsors
- admins

If we want a mechanism to reward people for contributions to the
project, I'd suggest something like the bugzilla points system:

  http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=points.html

This allows an easy view of users, while rewarding:

- packaging (through reviews and new packages)
- bug reporting
- bug fixing
- bug triaging

That allows it to be valid for even larger groups of users.

Moreover...

> Promotion Examples (specifics of which should be discussed):
> 
> - Elder Sponsor is FD6.
> - Sponsor rank is FD5.
> - FD5 (using some process) may be promoted to FD6. [6]
> - FESCO group vote required to promote anybody to FD5.
> - FESCO members may promote anybody to FD4, unilaterally.
> - FD6 may promote anybody to FD4, unilaterally.
> - FD5 may promote anybody to FD4, if three FD5 members agree (in database).
> - FD5 may promote anybody to FD3, unilaterally.
> - FD4 may promote anybody to FD3, if three FD4 members agree (in database).
> - FD4 may promote anybody to FD2, unilaterally.
> - FD3 may promote anybody to FD2, if two   FD3 members agree (in database).
> - FD2 can't promote anybody.
> - FD1 can't promote anybody.
> - FD0 can't promote anybody.
> 
> What do you think should be requirements and responsibilities of each rank?

Something like this seems to be to be excessive policy for the sake
of having policy. This isn't debian.

Bill