On Thu, 2024-07-04 at 15:44 +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 06:28:17PM +0500, Andrey Rakhmatullin wrote:
On Thu, Jul 04, 2024 at 03:22:35PM +0200, Daniel Gröber wrote:
I don't think this is necessary or helpful: most RFSes are sponsored because they are in a good shape and somebody decided to sponsor them, not
because a sponsor is actually interested in that software. https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/ makes sense to me: you either find a
relevant team or wait until people that sponsor random packages sponsor yours. Knowing what does the package actually do is mostly useful to skip
ones that don't deserve sponsoring.
Andrey, when was the last time you requested sponsorship on a package with
an identity that's not yet well established in the project? Perhaps you should try it next time you want to have something in Debian and see what happens.
Sorry? I know that we have a problem with not having enough sponsors and that many RFSes, especially for new packages, are open for months, I'm
just saying that providing more info about a package won't help solve it.
Sponsors are more likeley to pick up a package if it's personally
interesting to them, that's just human nature. Making the ITP/RFS more appealing doesn't really fix the root cause, no, but many of us work on Debian because it's intrinically interesting, no? So why shouldn't new contributors try to maximize the appeal of their work to motivate us DDs to look at it?
More motivation for sponsors -> fewer sponsors needed overall :)
--Daniel
Hi Daniel, Andrey,
I agree with Andrey that many packages are sponsored because they are in good shape rather than a
particuler DD having a personal interest in the area of a Request For Sponsorship (RFS) package. I
do have one very busy DD (ain't they all) who has indicated that they will accept infrequent
packages suggested by me based on a particular technology area, but this is rare.
Motivation for DD sponsors can be partly accomplished by lowering the workload when they take a
package on. Reduction in basic errors and as Andrey stated having packages in good order makes it
easier on a busy DD who may be getting pulled in a variety of directions i.e. real world, own
packages, NMUs, QA/Orphaned and of course mentors. I believe we have started the beginnings of this
with contributors being all put through the same review with specific tests they should pass. This
is an evolving process and by no means complete with all suggestions welcome.
Motivation for contributors also needs to be addressed. Contributors need a friendly atmosphere and
not fear being wrong and stung with short snippy feedback on Request For Sponsorship (RFS) bug
reports - We all started somewhere. Contributors need hints, links to correct information and
encouragement to feel that they are getting there and instilling good packaging and maintenance
habits for when they make submissions in the future.
Not going to write an essay, but just some thoughts.
Regards
Phil
--
Internet Relay Chat (IRC): kathenas
Website:
https://kathenas.org
Instagram:
https://instagram.com/kathenasorg/
Buy Me A Coffee:
https://buymeacoffee.com/kathenasorg
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQJOBAABCgA4FiEEcKCsRax3nv6E9jrtckqptS8CTIsFAmaGzx8aHHBoaWxpcC53 eWV0dEBrYXRoZW5hcy5vcmcACgkQckqptS8CTItR5Q//WlnsTNfkJQtYeWrBwNSm W7tIqn8vkJklMLyEzSZHSmrytzkzj7EeYBLeyEITZ5coMemjJK8RRfYUmd0IHAwJ T8iiXOASEqpGV70je6+cHbIsg8xiie7by3wnTQetPDkOLJnKRy4xTgFcXyoAAxWw S2NELReaLm9EDgBS7I+wZ3ggG73D2wvAXoPp8YlnF7bJxgzvsDzhbzIXkkjChpoV WoT1n+5MzKhUDKo1uPRQetOHPfVvs0NjSNGzwC7oMx7dsB/d3M8LMUPAeSWAiMut rhNrPuAzR0nzse+6oGCD35l3TWKLWpwGbRfDZKBzUtBmbEOANpX4/qVlP7yt8Xoi Sy02rGwxKPJaZXDtKyg21+dwRwK2LLONmHBfFhpV14xSRZSvU1vJ/tRINW0btE83 eYTTnhoUsTyE3ZIALgEIVieCcDGl9v2RO5zc4RREZ9t/tr74X1uvOFexD0plyDRm +9U9NxHiaCtEoZox9kD+3JM1VieB5N6hHaZwo2s1s5g3TXRPv6lChATINAt44HFA eygyXpDCDIUXPWOS7GWLNFd6VKAMzWIesNnwMiKKJO80PKWOL6YKAdoossB77MsS 1nlLps+L9pwUZo/De/TEU5FITxDtYWMM7874zZ6P0heiC8SRNvWQX6qcN4sKyrTY
byAlJkUMPzoNAb