From Fedora Project Wiki

(Reviewed latest changes (thanks for your work))
(docs moved to pagure)
(19 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
In the past, every regular Fedora packager having more than 5 packages (as maintainer) was able to request membership in the provenpackager group (former known as uberpackager group). This initial seeding of the group got changed into manual FAS requests later. Those requests can be approved by a single existing provenpackager-sponsor.
{{admon/important|This page is deprecated| FESCo docs have moved to [https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/ docs.fp.o] with source hosted in a [https://pagure.io/fesco/fesco-docs pagure repo]. This page is now at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/.}}


The fact that a single person can decide over someone elses provenpacker-status makes it very easy to slip people in, which don't have the level of experience and knowledge that a provenpackager (sponsor) should have.


Fedora currently has around 800 packagers, around 150 are provenpackagers - that's a lot. I can't imagine for myself, that we really have so many advanced and knowledged packagers, when looking at how some package reviews are done, how packages are maintained or some package-updates are performed. Of course I'm referring here to individual cases I'm aware about, maybe some partiality of myself.
Provenpackagers are members of the 'provenpackager' group. In addition to the rights granted to members of 'packager', provenpackagers are able to commit changes to packages they do not own or maintain. They are a group of skilled package maintainers who are experienced in a wide variety of package types and who are familiar with the [[Packaging:Guidelines|packaging guidelines]] and [[Package_maintainer_policy|package maintainer policies]], as well as acutely aware of [[Releases/Schedule|release schedule]] and [[ReleaseEngineering#Freeze_Policies|freeze policies]].


== Solution Overview ==
Provenpackagers lend a hand when help is needed, always with a desire to improve the quality of Fedora. Provenpackagers should try to communicate with owners of a package in bugzilla, irc or email prior to making changes. They should be careful not to change other people's packages needlessly and try to do the minimal changes required to fix problems, as explained more in depth in the policy explaining [[who is allowed to modify which packages]]. To exclude a package from provenpackagers access, you have to open a ticket at [https://pagure.io/fesco/new_issue FESCo issue tracker] and explain why provenpackagers should not have access to it. [[Fedora_Engineering_Steering_Committee | FESCo]] will discuss and vote on one of its weekly meetings about your request.
Multiple provenpackager/provenpackage-sponsor-votes should be required to allow a packager into the provenpackagers group.


== Scope ==
== Becoming provenpackager ==
Not just a single approval by a provenpackager-sponsor should be required, but the approval of multiple ones; maybe a voting or collecting karma points. What I definitely don't like to see is a voting where provenpackagers are bothered e.g. via e-mail or similar in order to vote for a new FAS request.


What I'm imaging is more or less the following scenario: A regular packager wants to get a provenpackager, thus he performs a FAS request for that. The provenpackagers maybe then notified, that a new provenpackager request went in as it currently is also the case, but that's optional. Provenpackagers now have a list in FAS with the person requesting provenpackager and can set a karma of -1/0/+1.
To become a member of the 'provenpackager' group, the procedure is the following:
 
# File a ticket in the [https://pagure.io/fesco/issues FESCo issue tracker] indicating why you wish to become a provenpackager.  
The scheme is similar to Bodhi, +15 karma points are required to get provenpackager. If a provenpackager doesn't vote or abstains, it's +/- 0, the default. And if a provenpackager is against the request, he can set -1. Provenpackagers are only allowed to give one vote/karma point in total, but should be able to change their mind later. If somebody makes to early a provenpackager request, it can be denied by setting -1, but if the person gets more and more involved and more knowledgeable over time, it can be changed +1 afterwards.
# A FESCo member will send an e-mail to the sponsors list for the packager group to review the application.
 
# You must get at least 3 positive votes with no negative votes, over a one week review period, to be automatically approved.
We could also use the karma points as well to downgrade a person easily if something goes horrible wrong after he is approved. That way someone who doesn't prove to be eligible to the status of a provenpackager can be removed from the group via the same mechanism that is used to grant the status. So if the karma goes down below +15 karma points again, the person is degraded to a "regular" packager and looses provenpackager permissions. This should prevent us from getting harmed easily.
# If you haven’t been automatically approved, after that period FESCo will vote at one of its weekly meetings on your request and then notify you if your request has been approved.
 
This proposal requires that the current provenpackager list is completely reset (and maybe seeded with all packager-sponsors and/or all packagers with more than 50 or so packages).
 
Requiring more than a single person for a new provenpackager (and keeping that status) also ensures, that the person is somehow known to the Fedora community or at least to the packagers, is involved into processes already and knows how the wind blows. The current situation is, that all of this is only "verified" by a single person (sponsor) and can't be reverted later without making much noise.
 
= Discussion Points =
The number of karma points/votings which has to be required by provenpackager sponsors in order to get a provenpackager: Personally, I'm tending to 15 or even more positive points, but if really needed we can lower that to 10 positive points. That means, 10 provenpackager (sponsors) would have to accept the request of the "regular" packager using +1, and this seems to be a reasonable amount for me.
 
== Comments? ==
Please place your comments, ideas and suggestions on [[Talk:PackageMaintainers/ProvenpackagerProposal|the talk page]].


[[Category:Package Maintainers]]
[[Category:Package Maintainers]]
[[Category:FESCo policy]]

Revision as of 12:03, 29 September 2018

Important.png
This page is deprecated
FESCo docs have moved to docs.fp.o with source hosted in a pagure repo. This page is now at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Provenpackager_policy/.


Provenpackagers are members of the 'provenpackager' group. In addition to the rights granted to members of 'packager', provenpackagers are able to commit changes to packages they do not own or maintain. They are a group of skilled package maintainers who are experienced in a wide variety of package types and who are familiar with the packaging guidelines and package maintainer policies, as well as acutely aware of release schedule and freeze policies.

Provenpackagers lend a hand when help is needed, always with a desire to improve the quality of Fedora. Provenpackagers should try to communicate with owners of a package in bugzilla, irc or email prior to making changes. They should be careful not to change other people's packages needlessly and try to do the minimal changes required to fix problems, as explained more in depth in the policy explaining who is allowed to modify which packages. To exclude a package from provenpackagers access, you have to open a ticket at FESCo issue tracker and explain why provenpackagers should not have access to it. FESCo will discuss and vote on one of its weekly meetings about your request.

Becoming provenpackager

To become a member of the 'provenpackager' group, the procedure is the following:

  1. File a ticket in the FESCo issue tracker indicating why you wish to become a provenpackager.
  2. A FESCo member will send an e-mail to the sponsors list for the packager group to review the application.
  3. You must get at least 3 positive votes with no negative votes, over a one week review period, to be automatically approved.
  4. If you haven’t been automatically approved, after that period FESCo will vote at one of its weekly meetings on your request and then notify you if your request has been approved.
Retrieved from "https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Provenpackager_policy&oldid=526244"