[Strawman] Sponsoring after Permissions Reorg

[Daniel Holbach]

On 09.12.2009 11:13, Emmet Hikory wrote:
>     I don't think that there is an identify between the list of bugs
> with patches attached and the list of bugs that need to be sponsored.
> Many patches need testing, or have not been integrated into the
> packaging.

In my mind there should be no sponsoring process at all. It's hard to
learn about it if you don't know about Ubuntu development and just want
to fix a simple bug. I really think that attaching a patch or branch to
a bug should be all that is involved in getting something uploaded.

If we fail to implement our processes like what I just described, it
should be as simple as possible. Figuring out which package set the
package is in this week, then subscribe some special team or post a
branch or whatever doesn't really seem fair to me.



> It's easy for us to forget, but there's often a
> significant learning effort to go from being able to produce a code
> patch (which skill one may have aquired in any of a large variety of
> contexts) to the ability to prepare a candidate revision of a package
> for upload: essentially one needs to be able to understand how the
> packaging is done, which of the many available patch systems is used,
> how to properly manipulate that patch system, how to ensure that the
> patch is applied using the selected patch system in the package, etc.

The conclusion I draw from that is that our tools can easily frustrate
drive-by contributors and we shouldn't try to further frustrate them by
making the processes more complicated. :-)

Have a great day,
 Daniel