On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 18:39 +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:

On Mon, 2024-07-22 at 10:26 -0700, Soren Stoutner wrote:

On Monday, July 22, 2024 8:08:08 AM MST Phil Wyett wrote:

Your absolutely right. The use of these tags would be better and I shall do
so. When Salvo wishes to browse ready packages, all that needs to be done is
follow the below link:

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?

include=tags%3Aconfirmed;package

=sponsorship-requests

Why not use mark it as ready using both the tags and the email subject? That
way, people using either interface can easily see RFPs that are ready.

Hi Soren,

Both can be done if people are happy with and want that.

Regards

Phil

Hi all,

The data now being added, be it on a subject line or via bts control all require that a submission to mentors file an RFS. We have many that state
they do not require a sponsor or not file an RFS. This makes processing difficult and time intensive.

Should we require all submissions to mentors file an RFS?

Please discuss. :-)

Regards

Phil

--
"I play the game for the game’s own sake"

Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans

--

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-----

iQJOBAABCAA4FiEEcKCsRax3nv6E9jrtckqptS8CTIsFAmafHVMaHHBoaWxpcC53 eWV0dEBrYXRoZW5hcy5vcmcACgkQckqptS8CTItK9Q//fhR8qCJKp4hscfdJVqGk 3LilQanaEu2foE85cV18tp2McDp7zLRRtrTs4Hz3+0K461UKxtxMaidDugXnX6y0 mfL92rLKThGkH01BmCe6J03tahP3/jm/MoCD9wr/5AwhcZRSx2qhgLdNy0klHHIC RI5FjvXgPUBmuCvQdFeruJqmpfxtAWOzqb3zAoYtp6BhCDmRVQTlq8hJo9iZQI7t zDlhewd93DTPHZlq1QjJjV0PNU4iQKOz1LWsCmi/45D+8DzAyD3XuThItYMmIUOV luV9vH+1+B8QRgNtGkzkCBAwo20YDqrmLWrOnEHE/FxAwkAtpYMJtmqEYyMjr+hL WBaSnakMNKbKLOexOjaEiu53XhjK/F+av7hMdQC1/6fBrRPuVhQ5QMFxr0KgKO3E pmnxiL/57QkuwH7cWN+02kLpOGhcREAUsu0a6tRHolWjWlqRM7k3TLgCG3MhlBhl IQegXsOcT7J+7pt25Z40OTD22t0I1XjeacwYFxKStl2TecWPlh+FOD0Hu/O1Z/Yb 2XJYDpJlsEfhHr18l

On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 05:20 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 04:02:54AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:

Hi all,

The data now being added, be it on a subject line or via bts control all require that a submission to mentors file an RFS. We have many that state they do not require a sponsor or not file an RFS. This makes processing difficult and time intensive.

Should we require all submissions to mentors file an RFS?

Please discuss. :-)

IMHO The existing documentation advocates already on using RFS bugs:

https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto/
"In general, sponsorship requests should be handled through the Debian
Bug Tracking System."

https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/
"You will be shown a RFS (request-for-sponsorship) template that you
should send out as a bug report filed against the sponsorship-requests
pseudo-package to draw attention to your package."

There are corner cases (e.g sponsoree has already a sponsor) where an
RFS is not needed, but as the rfs-howto says, generally it should be
done as documented, and that is using RFS bugs.

Have you experience cases where people do not file RFS bugs but should
have? (/me only looking for RFS bugs, so I don't have that data.)

Morning Tobias,

I have experienced such cases, but usually get people to file an RFS eventually. This takes time that I would prefer to be using for other things.

I understand the documentation as you do, but needed wisdom to now know to be able to advocate to mentors submitters that filing an RFS and add also the
fact that it is also likely to be looked at quicker.

No RFS because of having a sponsor. These can languish on mentors with no ongoing information being present or added. Could an RFS also be required for this case for clarity and we then know the supposed sponsor is aware, taken ownership and marked as pending on bts?

Regards

Phil

--
"I play the game for the game’s own sake"

Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans

--

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-----

iQJOBAABCAA4FiEEcKCsRax3nv6E9jrtckqptS8CTIsFAmafJWMaHHBoaWxpcC53 eWV0dEBrYXRoZW5hcy5vcmcACgkQckqptS8CTItkVg//fPQ3cff3q7Rw76+B+CnO s+ANXizcBlfEu34XPpG7T74O0XSJJh8J9Hc5nlHEYcBFT6BsjaXcaxOVst28vqiC b5wP6RoY+xnpFZJKXCFUuBxnEwINmmfoQWw2Fu3Mg4EyfRLSTOLNaogC3AQVb2DG 45Xn9nPHR9kmxmSjwxEs2UIVg3DNWWQ6QytdZzUlqyQ27hPUfRfaEMfkmGYF/WjS WVrE7xmN9DY/QZUQFakLSzZNxUgj3c+tIrWULc3k20rx7KIirF6kZaWPMbqP9LRH /zkX1l2FHX+fRLzYYLXDYgIP8AZIMUkEnXQeev67iKi4rP0ERxCGXlFuggjKMr4M y5alN6JNJkm4G/qhAh/zFfTrLmmIAG0AW96JPoygk3F1pn3xMujWBN+NcYA1E6Jv lZ1LdX9Rc5ym6ZJMECV2PX2GX3Wdfl43pSzObb5Euapf0f6cCRKfvRny3NJ+0+ac LhE4zTREO9CVtCY/gvj/Dxme0wNHQSA5yXLcWRMwR9F8Ugzxti3KEuy8NdaPkCV6 50QV8mUrEin3iFsER

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 04:37:18AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:

On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 05:20 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:

There are corner cases (e.g sponsoree has already a sponsor) where an
RFS is not needed, but as the rfs-howto says, generally it should be
done as documented, and that is using RFS bugs.

Have you experience cases where people do not file RFS bugs but should have? (/me only looking for RFS bugs, so I don't have that data.)

Morning Tobias,

I have experienced such cases, but usually get people to file an RFS eventually. This takes time that I would prefer to be using for other things.

I understand the documentation as you do, but needed wisdom to now know to be able to advocate to mentors submitters that filing an RFS and add also the fact that it is also likely to be looked at quicker.

No RFS because of having a sponsor. These can languish on mentors with no ongoing information being present or added. Could an RFS also be required for this case for clarity and we then know the supposed sponsor is aware, taken ownership and marked as pending on bts?

No, I don't think that we should *require* an RFS.

Possibly the language on mentors.d.n could be tweaked to indicate that
a RFS it is even more clear that the sponsoree *wants* a RFS, or mentors tweaked that it will print a warning if "needs sponsor: yes" is ticked.

(A a side note, in Debian there are usually multiple ways to archive something, as there are many workflows. It is uncommon in Debian to exactly say that you have to follow exactly one procedure, so e.g requiring a RFS would be a odd thing to do)

Regards

Phil

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 05:53 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 04:37:18AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:

On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 05:20 +0200, Tobias Frost wrote:

There are corner cases (e.g sponsoree has already a sponsor) where an
RFS is not needed, but as the rfs-howto says, generally it should be
done as documented, and that is using RFS bugs.

Have you experience cases where people do not file RFS bugs but should have? (/me only looking for RFS bugs, so I don't have that data.)

Morning Tobias,

I have experienced such cases, but usually get people to file an RFS eventually. This takes time that I would prefer to be using for other things.

I understand the documentation as you do, but needed wisdom to now know to be
able to advocate to mentors submitters that filing an RFS and add also the fact that it is also likely to be looked at quicker.

No RFS because of having a sponsor. These can languish on mentors with no ongoing information being present or added. Could an RFS also be required for
this case for clarity and we then know the supposed sponsor is aware, taken ownership and marked as pending on bts?

No, I don't think that we should *require* an RFS.

Possibly the language on mentors.d.n could be tweaked to indicate that
a RFS it is even more clear that the sponsoree *wants* a RFS, or mentors tweaked that it will print a warning if "needs sponsor: yes" is ticked.

(A a side note, in Debian there are usually multiple ways to archive something,
as there are many workflows. It is uncommon in Debian to exactly say that you have to follow exactly one procedure, so e.g requiring a RFS would be a odd thing to do)

Regards

Phil

Hi Tobias,

Tweaking the language maybe a good idea.

I know and understand Debian has many workflows and we do ask for one
specific method of people.

Regards

Phil

--
"I play the game for the game’s own sake"

Arthur Conan Doyle - The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans

--

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-----

iQJOBAABCAA4FiEEcKCsRax3nv6E9jrtckqptS8CTIsFAmafPoAaHHBoaWxpcC53 eWV0dEBrYXRoZW5hcy5vcmcACgkQckqptS8CTIvA7A//aVJ0Ki6Kxi9pkakORyIK ZilIAhWNJIMmqwWf4d/bnc1WGmdFqtCF5IT14Z46xRRZq9AQgVe/YacekapQ0QwY 8+hBSfL0/3j51omhv3cDBnlhOw5CckobGkm80O4KfHl+1u5y3NN/eoHKMjrVNLwp NdpwbRoEWKpq/+rvP8STc9XoquW7Ak/Ayjqg5JMi/NvdXVx/1eU2h0nKCww5nj17 l/Ub1zzFtrarYy6x3dPJ/ts6rOewtPf0+6z6L5mSAPIIZaNjlqg4s9KWz8+NgDaj eXvFUtTtZiBH4+BY1oEMoRtGbhGwZOd8z7NiGSN8qDZZ2Tx/W01eZIl4gfgIa1Ot Z7NoGi0WVRrdFVYSsK4OzPBlwKQDRUTM6O/vgp47R4hxcUQlQrT6i+bV9nNdUK8x YKd0228YYp78GbxYTNwgn52bHkGoz/IZ82K1gUGm6qrXZAlXyUn9jPFPhaGySGe7 BeboQV1FOZuCzcmGD7SdeMAtjvPDgf3w/759Pb0EONrYPamhkcgTiQ9v/eiFgnTu Vhez7fWDRj2BbeQbr

On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 04:37:18AM +0100, Phil Wyett wrote:

Should we require all submissions to mentors file an RFS?

Please discuss. :-)

IMHO The existing documentation advocates already on using RFS bugs:

https://mentors.debian.net/sponsors/rfs-howto/
"In general, sponsorship requests should be handled through the Debian
Bug Tracking System."

https://mentors.debian.net/intro-maintainers/
"You will be shown a RFS (request-for-sponsorship) template that you
should send out as a bug report filed against the sponsorship-requests
pseudo-package to draw attention to your package."

There are corner cases (e.g sponsoree has already a sponsor) where an
RFS is not needed, but as the rfs-howto says, generally it should be
done as documented, and that is using RFS bugs.

Have you experience cases where people do not file RFS bugs but should have? (/me only looking for RFS bugs, so I don't have that data.)

Morning Tobias,

I have experienced such cases, but usually get people to file an RFS eventually. This takes time that I would prefer to be using for other things.

I understand the documentation as you do, but needed wisdom to now know to be able to advocate to mentors submitters that filing an RFS and add also the fact that it is also likely to be looked at quicker.

I don't see how is this related to *requiring* anything.
There are, or at least were, basically two ways to get a sponsor if you
need one: file an RFS and wait for someone to look at the RFS list or ping people/teams directly. You need to file an RFS for the former, you don't
need it for the latter. In both cases it's clear in advance whether you
need to file an RFS.
I expect some people to be, let's say, uninformed enough to upload
something to mentors, not read the docs provided on mentors and still
expect to be sponsored but social problems shouldn't be solved by
technical means.

No RFS because of having a sponsor. These can languish on mentors with no ongoing information being present or added. Could an RFS also be required for this case for clarity and we then know the supposed sponsor is aware, taken ownership and marked as pending on bts?

This sounds alien to me, but if you are going to change the meaning of an
RFS then I don't have an opinion.



--
WBR, wRAR

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEolIP6gqGcKZh3YxVM2L3AxpJkuEFAmafo9ItFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEDNi9wMaSZLh DmMP/R3dincVwU80J7Q1z+0Mcam/GPLQXRppxfVmNlheLidWQFhJwNtppuaJBios WNiJ9aXgfjMgqz+vh+sXBKw0r8F6dLgb3kYJC1nsspS2qVrLnCxPQmYfQmT20Z91 2iM3mrMeI5wet3El0IBJci05kXiOUMSbfN0Y8RQl7Ctt8NX6S+j6YDhV9kB5oLTY owTOG+usd/lqM4TtfSsUqvSVdY/+KPZI7U9JruQZMHp+dt1tq2IKroXwfgSIg4JC e22ZHo2QQpF6Vdnegg/mEvb+MHKCMsIrOPgRlC3+QMiahk2F9VoDKaSz3OkWSVa/ ek2Y6m7HcyauYSshbfpFF5d6GfDsZV3K3uXml/JkD4fgmf/MJ9Wgmv1mu/5jNpx5 qrJ3F9Kkz1pYN18rIEAgSI1DEPlAiU1Q4VTnH9vBjKC/ZcxqSZ/oK96alLJDWlAf RRdASBM6OQTobwmBQL8K0PMT1aydV6kg44Iy/J6jLqcGJxAu2VWcngvknyWFufsv OYNzAstLq+eK44X705MMvoNDWQj9za1zOeMWl/Ekv4AZrARb1ALknh2IaaC3YJtQ b//iIlyW7K+YdsXKi/7mNXLEoJzsZD4kSQOyddb7zf95IQbv330OTRB+f5WPJyt/ KPpqUX0bzavR/1zLzdwD3L4Q4Z8kj/fmENGUirDqbVBk/yfY
=s6hs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)