+1, from me - as the initial sponsor of Christian. He doing a good job in reviews. Finds tricky packaging errors and is always willing to help and explain about them.

[https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=POST&bug_status=MODIFIED&bug_status=ON_DEV&bug_status=ON_QA&bug_status=VERIFIED&bug_status=RELEASE_PENDING&bug_status=CLOSED&classification=Fedora&component=Package%20Review&email1=chrisdersch%40gmail.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&list_id=2845530&order=changeddate%2Cbug_status%2Cbug_id&product=Fedora&product=Fedora%20EPEL&query_format=advanced Christian's reviews from RHBZ]

It's been a week, but this ticket may not have gone out to sponsors. I have sent a note now asking for feedback.

It went out to sponsors. Maybe lack of comments here is due lupinix is not widely known or he didn't do many reviews?

I can not say anything about Christian, neither good, nor bad.

-1 from me at this time.

5 out of 7 completed reviews are of besser82's packages. I don't see any "tricky packaging errors" in those reviews.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1140403 was approved despite wrong release versioning being used (should've been 0.4.rc1%{?dist}, not 4.RC1%{?dist}).

In my opinion he needs more experience with non-trivial reviews and different packagers.

So you think I should wait some more time with official sponsoring? This is not a problem for me, I just thought it would be easier to help new packagers this way. Of course I will also help new packagers in IRC etc. without being a sponsor, they just need another sponsor then.

Christian

Agreeing with rathann at this time. Choosing mostly besser82's packages has not resulted in an opportunity to do "five high quality, nontrivial package reviews".

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor

With regard to "waiting" some more time, I have mixed feelings. It would have been helpful to point at a couple of reviews where you show how you guide packagers with comments and by pointing at the packaging guidelines. It need not be reviews of packages from someone who needs a sponsor, because there are enough approved/sponsored packagers who are still "new" and still need guidance for some time. This is because some packagers get sponsored already with the review of a single package and without requiring them to contribute a few reviews. Often that results in them reintroducing package mistakes at a later point or packaging up something in a wrong way, because they may be aware of the existance of the guidelines but they don't look them up actively to self-review their own packages.

It's been a week since I sent out the announcement, and there's not a +3 differential in votes. :(

Closing this now, but do feel free to reapply.