Role of the Sponsorship Queue

[Scott Kitterman]

"Brian Murray" <brian at ubuntu.com> wrote:

>On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 03:30:05PM +0100, Daniel Holbach wrote:
>> On 03.03.2010 14:37, Martin Pitt wrote:
>> > Daniel Holbach [2010-03-03 14:11 +0100]:
>> >> In the end only uploaders can upload stuff
>> > 
>> > That's correct, but for the "poor state" category of patches far more
>> > people than just the uploaders can work on/comment/review those.
>> 
>> Right, that's why I said we probably should have another discussion
>> about how the "guide bugs with patches towards sponsorship" process (aka
>> lucid-qa-fixing-bugs-with-patches) should entail.
>> 
>> 
>> >> , should they be checking two different lists based on the
>> >> motivation of the patch author?
>> > 
>> > I'm a bit undecided on that, TBH. On the one hand, simplicity is nice
>> > (just having one queue), OTOH we'll never be able to drive that queue
>> > down to zero, so it's also a motivation/get things stuck problem.
>> 
>> I'm not sure I understand. Can you explain what do you mean by
>> "motivation/get things stuck problem"?
>> 
>> Let me recap: we have lots of bugs with patches attached that are
>> supposed to fix problems, we don't have enough people to review all of
>> them, we probably will never get down to zero. How exactly will it help
>> if we'd ask patch contributors to go to queue A if they're interested in
>> contributing more closely to Ubuntu Development and if not, go to queue B?
>
>I'm in favor of having two separate queues now - one for patches and one
>for sponsorship.  In regards to your particular question I don't think
>we are asking patch contributors to go to any queue.  A contributor just
>needs to add a patch to a bug report and they will automatically get put
>in the patch review queue.
>
>For the other case where someone is interested in contributing more
>closely to Ubuntu Development they will be more familiar with Ubuntu
>Development and subsequently more familiar with our processes.  In that
>case I would expect them to subscribe the "sponsors" team to the bug
>report in which case the bug will not get added to the patch review
>queue.
>
So the choices are:

1. Tag it patch and it goes into the pile of 2,000 undifferienciated patches that someone will get today someday. 

2. Subscribe the sponsors queue and we expect you're working on becoming an Ubuntu developer and to work all the way through to an uploadable package. 

Do we really want to cast sponsorship that narrowly? 

Scott K