On 30.04.2008 13:41, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:07 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
[...]
> Which is pointing out one very big sore point in Fedora after the merge between
> core and extras, very little people seem to have been appointed sponsor,
> certainly something where IMHO FESco is dropping the ball.
I realize that it's much easier to criticize a small body of people vs.
the whole Fedora community, but this is hardly FESCo's fault.
Sorry to disagree, but it IMHO is completely FESCo's fault.
We have a
standing item in the meeting to discuss and vote on sponsors. We
literally have not received any nominations in quite a while.
Here is the difference between "I have a open ear for your problems;
just come and tell me about it" vs. "I'm looking after you all the time
and think I noticed you have some problems; should we try to solve them
together" again I mentioned in a mail to this list yesterday.
In the Extras days (at least those when I run the meetings) we
*actively* looked out for new sponsors all the time:
* we each meeting asked for new sponsor nominations (self-nominations
or nominations from other people) and thus everyone had to think about
it for a moment
* in the agenda we send out to the list there was the point "sponsor
(self-)nominations" quite often (not often enough) -- that way everyone
on the list got a reminder that they can nominate/self-nominate
* new sponsor-nominations were not a FESCO-only thing; we tried to
integrate the existing sponsors into the discussions and decisions, as
they are in the best position for it (¹)
FESCO doesn't do any of the above properly these days IMHO. Especially
the first two points are IMHO important and made sure people always got
reminded that they could self-nominate or nominate other people. Most of
the time in fact in were no self-nomination -- often people got
nominated by existing sponsors.
CU
knurd
(¹) -- that could have worked a lot better, but it worked