Role of the Sponsorship Queue

[Daniel Holbach]

On 04.03.2010 04:57, Emmet Hikory wrote:
>     Not quite, and in two ways.  Firstly, I don't think there is any
> way that we can determine if someone is an Ubuntu Developer or not
> without asking them (as there's no clear way to distinguide
> Prospective Developers from arbitrary users, and no clear way to
> distinguish Contributing Developres who didn't happen to chat with the
> DMB from other Ubuntu Members).  Secondly, I'd really prefer to see
> sponsors discovering bugs in the sponsors queue that ought be in the
> reiviewers queue leave a bug comment like the following:
> 
> "This patch doesn't appear to be integrated into the packaging for the
> packagee.  I've removed this bug from the sponsors queue and
> subscribed myself.  If you're planning on working on it more, please
> update the bug, otherwise I will handle it from here.  Please note
> that one does not need to subscribe the sponsors queue for most
> patches."
> 
>     Depending on other factors, it may be worth mentioning upstream
> coordination or other actions that oght be taken to help the patch
> submitter get the issue solved (and I *don't* think "Go make a debdiff
> out of this and resubmit" is a useful statement of guideance).
> 
>     Also, I object to the idea that we should consider patches that
> got subscribed to the sponsors queue any better than other patches in
> the bugtracker if they aren't being produced by active developers.
> That just creates the impression that there's some mysterious method
> that one has to use to get a patch applied.  That there happen to be
> 2000 patches awaiting our attention is a completely different failure
> on our part, and unrelated to how we deal with sponsoring (although a
> problem we ought solve).

The unfortunate thing is: it's the reality.

1) Attach a patch to a bug of a random package: effectively nobody will
notice or care.
2) "Make it a debdiff", get it into the Sponsoring Queue: it will
probably be applied.

In your mail above you acknowledge how hard it is to make the
distinction between the two "categories of contributors". The proposal
to not allow patches from "non-developers" into Sponsoring does not even
try to solve the problem of those 2000 waiting patches, but, hey, "we
ought solve" it.

What is this proposal and theoretical distinction good for? The proposal
to not allow patches from "non-developers" into the Sponsoring Queue
does not solve any problems we have.

I'm convinced that I will notice somebody who is doing great work and
who wants to be involved in Ubuntu Development when I read their name on
patches a couple of times and I'll make sure to help them.

Have a great day,
 Daniel