On 01/22/2015 07:15 PM, Haïkel wrote:
> 2015-01-21 11:49 GMT+01:00 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@redhat.com>:
>>
>> Step 6: ... If the proposed package is not reviewed for 2 months, the
>> package must be reviewed by the submitter, and a git module with the
>> master branch will be approved.
>>
>
> I share your concern about the pending list but self-review is not acceptable.
> Just licensing review itself would be a blocker to your proposal.
>
> But if we were to have a staging repository as suggested by Josh and Jaroslav,
>  it could be something that we could consider.
>
>
> What saddens me is that we have plenty of packagers and sponsors and only
> a very small fraction does review.
> We should find a way to encourage people doing review even *INFORMAL*
> ones.
> Good informal reviews is the best way to get sponsored, and helps decreasing
> the pile (as a sponsor, I approve a positive and good quality informal
> review by my mentees).
>
>
> Besides, some submitters do not try hard enough to find reviewers:
> * some reviews do not provide usable links to spec and srpm breaking usage of
> semi-automated reviewing tool. The more information you give to the reviewer,
> the more likely it will get reviewed fast.
> * reviews swapping: 376 pending reviews but how many swapping requests
> on this list ?
> * Just go asking your fellow packagers on irc/mail or SIG if there's one.
> though I keep telling that I'm more than willing to do python reviews
> (for free, no swapping!),
> very little people ping me.
>
> If everyone does an effort, it will be less of a problem.
>
> H.
>
>
> PS: please no badges for reviewing, it would probably help getting
> more reviewers
> at the expense of quality. Reviews quality is also another problem.


I think the last bullet point here is the important part.  I understand the disposition for a technical solution, but someone that just drops their package in  - even after two months - isn't really getting a sense of community out of the experience.  The process as-is, while it can be frustrating for all the reasons described, encourages new contributors to get acquainted with their fellow packagers and their sponsors.

I'm not suggesting a de facto "you must be sociable to be a Fedora Packager", but the process does reinforce that you're not alone when you get stuck, and you're not so isolated that nobody cares if you make a mistake.  The informal reviews, irc chats, and list mails don't just garner experience; they help develop a sense of participation, and that leads to greater contributor retention.

Maybe some list or other communication channel that's more clearly for packaging issues - I'm told devel@ can be intimidating - would help, but I'm not really suggesting anything specific.  Everyone in the thread here, and probably far more, have answered inane questions from me at one time or another :P  Sometimes more process and more guides can help, and sometimes you just need to bounce your understanding of the subject off someone to clear up misconceptions and gain a little confidence.  That part isn't broken, but maybe new packagers don't know it.

--
-- Pete

PS: Haïkel, if you're passing out python reviews...