requesting sponsor for new package: xmms-jess

[Michael Schwendt]

On Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:07:00 -0500, Charles R. Anderson wrote:

> I've packaged a visualization plugin for xmms called JESS:
> 
> http://angus.ind.wpi.edu/~cra/fedora/extras/xmms-jess/
> 
> 
> URL         : http://arquier.free.fr/
> Summary     : JESS Visualization Plugin for XMMS
> Description :
> JESS is a visualization plugin for XMMS with blur, image distortion,
> oscilloscope, 3D rotating grids with synchro zoom, fading palette, and
> synchronized flash effects.
> 
> 
> * Tue Feb 08 2005 Charles R. Anderson <cra at wpi.edu>> - 0:2.91-1
> 
> - initial package for Fedora Extras
> 
> 
> Is anyone interested in sponsoring this for inclusion to Extras?

My take on this is:

 * I'd like to see the CVS accounts creation thingy get going first, so
more of the current fedora.us package developers can work on their
packages without needing another person as a gateway to CVS. I consider
this important particularly for update requests which consist of more than
a small patch.

If package owners need to mail sponsors or trusted developers (or whatever
we call them) and make available src.rpms on some website and transfer
files back and forth and all that stuff before CVS can be updated, that is
no improvement compared with the fedora.us process. No public queue,
probably even communication via private mail or bugzilla tickets which get
buried beneath dozens to hundreds of other bugs. [Does every package owner
have a CVS gateway contact person already?]

Being a package sponsor would mean to apply at least the security relevant
sanity checks from fedora.us [and most likely skim over the technical spec
details] before importing something. So, package request approval is not
simplified unless there is a level of trust between two people already.
Usually, community QA does not kick in before binaries are built and
published somewhere. The fine folks who comment on src.rpms prior to
release, or reply to extras-commits-list, are an exception.

I want to see how the "promotion" of external contributors works out in
practice. When that works, resources are free. And as such, my focus is
on keeping the existing packages in Fedora Extras maintained and
supporting the current package owners.

 * I'd like to get confirmation on whether we are complete, that is whether
all the packages transferred from fedora.us have an active package
owner. At least one trusted developer is being missed for several weeks.

 * I'd like to avoid the bottleneck of a few contributors trying to battle
a flood of new package requests, and the uncertainty that the barrier to
getting CVS access might be a problem. External contributors always bear
the risk of dropping off all of sudden when they consider the project's
procedures a burden. I'd like to avoid that an external packager's first
package is accepted, but his other six packages don't seem to make it
because of lack of resources or lack of interest.

 * There's also still the old fedora.us package submission list, which is
still active with regard to packages which have been reviewed and which
are being worked on (sometimes in conjunction with upstream authors). It
makes no sense to kill the active parts of it. But it would make sense to
transfer unreviewed package requests into a new queue/list which targets
Fedora Extras and would be processed differently.

Michael

-- 
Fedora Core release 3 (Heidelberg) - Linux 2.6.10-1.762_FC3
loadavg: 1.10 1.13 1.37