 Okay, so my name is Miroslav Tsuki and I would like to talk here about a sponsorship process and how to improve that and if it is possible. I'm pretty much a sponsor and I've been monitoring how this sponsorship works and I'm personally not satisfied with that so I watched it closely for more than a year. I have some data and I can show you them, probably even some ideas, but the main point should be that we later should discuss how to improve and I would really love to hear your ideas which I may later present on my English or something like that. Come here. So what is what is the situation today? If someone want to join Fedora and contribute to Fedora and sorry, right now I'm speaking about contributing like packaging packages. There are a dozen of other areas, editing, wiki, art, usability, outreach and others, but I'm focusing here only on the packaging part. So what's the situation today? You have to submit package review and block Fedora FE needs sponsors and wait and wait and wait. Sometimes it's fast, but sometimes it is not. Right now we have in the queue 100 package reviews which are waiting for a sponsor or to be sponsored. But that's not much. Yeah, that's not much, but it's still more than zero. Fortunately it's not growing too much recently, but it's not declining either and I will mention it on another slide. There are some reviews which are waiting there for years, which is not ideal either. Sometimes it's on purpose, I would say. Has anybody been part of the high-effects review? Yeah, I was the one who finished that. Okay, I was the one who tried to figure it out first and it was me. I mean it's been like eight years, so I don't even remember. And the review was close after nine years. Well, it was two upscreens fighting each other. But it was even in Fedora fights. I sent that guy Cap and the Cap for his patients. But we have some reviews which are quite stuffed. And there is a fight whether the guys should wait because there are still some review which was not even touched by a sponsor. Or whether they should contact one. Some try to contact. It's a problem. Who to contact? Because we have 135 sponsors, which is not so much, but nice number. But I will speak about that later. And the queue, we just said it. Right now the oldest review is four years old. It used to be nine years old. We have 190 reviews which need sponsors. And at the same time we have ten times more regular package review which are waiting for being review. Which file with motivation and I will speak about that later. Just remember that data. Okay, we have 135 sponsors. But that's only just record in DB. Because some of them are inactive. And some of them are even dead. So if you try to reach some of those sponsors, you may or get lucky to even get some response. Some of them are specialized in their field. I will probably not say Java package for the review if I can avoid that. And I guess others have that similar. So find the correct sponsor for your package can be hard. But look closely what on the sponsors. I gather some statistics. And 80 sponsors have no visible activity in past year. It means neither not command in those reviews or neither sponsored somebody directly. In the build system or? In what? In the build system. No. That would be interesting to cross with stupid because someone who doesn't even build a package in less than two years. Yeah, but some of them are active. I seen in that list some people which are active and do lots of work for Fedora. So they are active in Fedora. They just didn't then any sponsorship in past year. And yes, I know about some guys which done some sponsorship related work like talking about packaging. So I don't want to name them because it's not fair because they probably done some work. But it doesn't help with lowering those picture reviews. Well, I think you say no visible activity. I think that's the right term. I'm one of the 80 with no visible activity. I have something 22, 23 people that I sponsor. I still look over every commit they do. I take care of them. I email with them privately. Of course, that's not visible. I'm not ready to accept new sponsors. I'm aware that it's not fair metrics. But I'm trying to get at least something close so we know how many sponsors me as new guy who want to join Fedora is able to reach. But the thing is you already came up with this idea on the mailing list earlier. And I was one of the people who replied and said, hey, I'm still active, but just visible. And then you responded like, okay, I'm going to shut down my idea. And I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. We need to find a way that we can identify people who are no longer active or willing to accept new sponsors. And I think you're suggesting that if somebody is really no longer active in the whole system, he doesn't authenticate against FAS or something, then he's really gone. These need to be wiped out. That's a general problem. Yeah, that's a general problem. I think maybe if we can refine the data and identify very few people, because I don't think that we have 80 persons, people that are totally active. But if we have at least like five or 10 people, that's something that should be brought to the sponsors. Well, we have these alias and we say, okay, we have a technique system. No, but maybe it would be more sensitive to use that. Okay, I will postpone it for a later discussion. I would first try to present those data. They are not perfect, but let's assume for a while that... Well, on the statistic level, it shows us at least where the percentage are. We have about 50 something. Yeah, so right now we have probably 55% which are willing to sponsor somebody or take somebody new. This is not a big number. So how the sponsors work in the past year? From my script, it seems that only 12 sponsors work on Baxilas. Again, it seems like a really low number for me. I don't even trust it, but I didn't have time to validate it, but it's still a low number. I think we are likely to, but that means that a lot of sponsors are sponsoring people who are working on Baxilas. So that's something that needs to be followed. Yeah, despite the fact that only 12 people work on Baxilas, we had 49 sponsors. We sponsored 142 sponsors. So it was either sponsorship or commentings or something like that. So yeah, we have a lot of fresh blood. We have some fresh blood, but obviously not all of them come through the normal sponsorship process as we plan to work it. For a moment, let's see why the sponsors pull out. For my experience, and I don't have the data for that because I may contact some sponsors who pull out, but they usually wait for days, months or years and then lose their interest in Federa because they have no reaction. And then somebody after a few years, sometimes even me, come and do, are you still interesting? And when they do direct for two months or something like that, the package review is closed. So we basically lost the people. They were in some time interesting in Federa contributing and we lost them. And if you were on the presentation of B today morning, they have some data from DataGripper and she had a huge number of people which created a first account, done some work for Federa, like less than 10 action in DataGripper and then they were gone. They had no more interesting in Federa. So those are people which we may work with them and convince them to join Federa and do something. And very often the reason is that why we as sponsors are closing is not about the review, it's because the sponsor doesn't direct. Yeah, that's true very, very often. I take a limited sample of some of those oldest reviews and the average waiting time for the Sponsory reaction is 12 months and the longest is 28 months. So yeah, we sometimes have to wait for the Sponsory and sometimes even for a long time. But at the same time and these numbers are 50 to 50, 50% we are waiting for the Sponsory and 50% for the Sponsors. Instead we are much longer waiting for the Sponsor. On the same sample, we waited 26 months for Sponsor when the longest time was 64. But the thing is the Sponsor doesn't have to be a Sponsor that doesn't review, anybody can do not review. Actually there's a ton of processes that we ask Sponsory to do informal reviews and they often don't and it's even, I think, written somewhere in the region. Yeah. And they should start reading because when I see somebody reading. I will mention it in a while. I even thought about a moment. Are we redhead only focus because I noticed that quite often those people which are sponsored are at redhead.com. So I said, are we redhead essentially or not? Actually it was some other sample for past quarter it was. I think there was 40 people sponsored. 21 was from redhead 19 from some other domains. And three from these others were likely redhead because they name match to our local employee database. So we have a lot of people from redhead which are being sponsored but at the same time approximately the same number from the others. And it seems we are not making exception because former redhead vice president are still waiting for four years to be sponsored. It shows that we at least don't prefer anymore. That's right. Yeah. Yeah. Correct. But very interesting was that from these 90 others were four from Intel. They have at Intel.com. Which brings me the idea that very likely those new sponsoring successful sponsoring comes from the group or from the community. Where somebody from Fedora already exists. If you join redhead somebody will mentor you because you need it for work. And he will say do that, do that. And you will very likely be sponsored within days or week. If you come from the Intel or some other company where already have Fedora account. And his package will guide you and say right now you have to read these guidelines. But only these parts. These are important. These are the 15 pages long. It's not so important. And watch this process. You need to know that. And you are sponsored again very quick. If you come from the university where it's already somebody from Fedora. It goes quick. But if you are really new by and you are alone and you just heard and read about Fedora and want to join. And you don't know anything about Fedora. Nobody is very likely for you to be hard. It's you are supposed to say read the guidelines. It's long. And I don't even know all those guidelines because they are changing quite fast. I don't hear very well. Yeah. And if you have to do some informal review you have to know the guidelines first. So it's chicken egg problem. Because when you do not work in Beijing, you know Python guidelines pretty well. But you are not likely to know each guidelines. Which are very different and go by different ways. Maybe we need to specialize people. Yeah. Well, I ask the sponsors to fill a survey. I get 33 responses. Here are the results. The link is on my slide. So when you will check it, it's on the internet. You can go through that. But there is nothing too surprising. Just that how often do you check for the new bug zealots? Because blocking FE needs sponsors rarely per year or once some period. But despite that these answers are very likely honest. I think they are very often lie. Because I asked several guys how many people you sponsored in past half a year. They told me some numbers and when I compared that against my script. It's often like, okay, I sponsored like six people. I said no, it was just two. You sponsored six people in past 18 months. Because they are not lying on purpose, but the time flies. It sounds like it's been yesterday, but it's been years ago probably. So I very often say, yeah, I'm doing sponsorship work quite often. But if I look into the emails, it seems that, okay, I did a last review six months ago. Because I had a lot of work and I forget about the time. It's also that this survey is by no means scientific. You have some responses. Again, I'm guilty as charged. I didn't develop the survey. I don't even remember if I did or not. Yeah, but more interesting was similar survey which I sent to Sponsory, which were recently successfully sponsored. I didn't send those which were unsuccessful, my fault. And a lot of them say that they were pretty fast sponsored. But some of them waited even, I think there was a year. Yeah, some of them took care. Some of them find hard to find sponsors. Some of them say, okay, my red hat teammate sponsored me. So that's what I'm talking about. If you have some teammate who already is Fedora, you are very likely to find a sponsor. If you are not, it's difficult for you. Interesting is this part about the biggest obstacle. And you can find their footprint. Some say there are a lot of documentation. Some say there is too much documentation. So someone wants less, someone wants more. Are we correct? I don't think so. Definitely there is something fishy with our documentation. And that's what I said. We have long guidelines. You are unable to comprehend that on your day zero. So you may need probably something smaller. Well, if you are more advanced, you need some pointers later. Telling them to use Fedora review. Because it has a smaller set of guidelines. And most of these guidelines, they don't even have a word of them. They have to focus on the most important investor. There are so many different aspects. One of these is the review process. And we know it because we came up with it in 2006 or something. And bugzilla doesn't work. Somebody has been working on an app. Some kind of web application. When that's done, if it ever gets done, that will make a whole lot of things nicer. We have been trying to split the system to make it easier. That's why anybody can do a package review now. The question is, I have it later in the slides. For us, just for Fedora QA, can we run the Fedora review automatically? Yeah, I wish. The tool would of course do that. Has anybody seen this tool? I looked at the source in the last vlog, but I don't know what happened to it. Yeah, because a lot of sponsors just fill it. And there are some issues. So that's like first response around the Fedora review. There are some issues and fix this sheet first. And then we will talk about other parts. But that can be done automatically. Fedora review itself can take a bugzilla number, pull out the last bit of info. There's nothing that stops somebody from taking a list of those bugs, asking Fedora review to run, and then pasting the input into the bug. That's what just breaks. And that is doable. Has anyone done it? I think when I do that, I want to come in first. Yes. To either do the review once or someone else. We know we all see a lot of reviews, but the package doesn't even build. It doesn't build at all. I mean, they should be doing this themselves, and some of them don't. And in fact, the sad thing is, the ones that don't are often the ones that sit in sponsorship. Or in the review piece. Why do we have 1200 reviews? You know, it's not because all these packages are impossible. Sometimes, yeah, we get hammered. So I made a step aside. Look right now, how Debian do that? Is there something which competition do better, which we can learn from? I'm sure if someone knows Debian how it works, but they have two kinds of developers. They have Debian developer, which can do anything. I think they don't even need to send package review like we do. They can upload anything. So they build something and immediately upload. I'm not sure if we won't do that, but it will definitely help to lower that package review of those 1000 packages. But that would mean you would need it. But it's quite hard to become Debian developer. I don't even know what it actually takes. I try it. I try to become Debian. If I managed to succeed, I probably wouldn't sit here today. Their requirements are so ridiculous. One of the requirements is meeting three other Debian developers. That's one level below, because that's for Debian maintainer, which is one level below. Debian maintainer is somebody, because anyone can submit package to Debian, but Debian developer must sponsor it. So you must send it to Debian developer and he can send it to review it and upload it on your behalf. Debian maintainer can upload it without a sponsor, but it's still Debian developer and I don't know what the difference it actually is, but it's one level below. For the Debian maintainer, you have to have GPG signed it by at least one Debian developer, one and more and in the past it was three Debian developers. So you must met them in person. And when I tried it, so for me it was... I traveled to Prague, to Vienna and to Salzburg to have that GPG signed it. So you have to agree to social contract and policies, and then is the hard part, you have to find your advocate, like sponsor, which then must agree that you are good enough and it's fuzzy defined. It's not defined what that means. So I sit for whole week with Debian developer in one room, we change emails over our net for weeks and I still was not good enough to become Debian maintainer. So the bar is pretty high. So I'm not sure we want to have it so high, so we are probably not doing anything so wrong. I'm not sure if we can learn from Debian something. The sign like Kevin Kotler is often suggesting that proven package should be able to introduce new pages. I would raise the bar this high in this sign. Oh, without reviewing again? Yeah, at least this high. I would not say that, because if I'm, despite being proven package and sponsor, I still have no problem sending a Sumitik package review because I'm familiar with you guys and I quite easy find somebody who do the package review for me because the guys knows that there will be very likely no problem with my code. So it can be done in hours. If you're already part of the community, you should just be able to trade reviews or whatever. But we are talking about getting new people in there. In this case, I don't think you reached, you are something for the, we are doing it worse when we get new people. Most of the Debian developers in France have a single research facility in Korea, mostly because they have a lot of different developers inside. So they are doing it pretty well. There are things that Debian does better. You mentioned Debian maintainer and Debian developer, but they don't keep the sponsor maintainer. So Debian developer is like proven packageer. They can upload any packages they want. Debian maintainer can just upload to packages they have ACL on, so it's like normal packageer. But there is also a possibility to maintain a package, not being either maintainer nor developer. Just each time you want to have an upload, you just need to contact your sponsor. Yeah, I mentioned at the beginning. In Fedora, we don't have such possibility really. Well, theoretically, yes, you can provide patches and packages and so on. But if it requires even more time of the sponsor, so I would rather spend that time on sponsoring that guy and sending him what's wrong with his code and spend the time on him to become packageer. If I spent like three times reviewing the package that somebody submits, I would rather focus on these three reviews and after the third time he should be smart enough to become a real packageer. So here comes few suggestions or questions I have and then let's discuss. So how to fix that? Have more sponsors. Right now, the bar is even quite low. Previously it was like fuzzy defined. He should be good enough. Right now it's just only you should maintain three non-trivial packages, have five high-quality non-trivial package reviews and have me being members through the branching, so at least for one early cycle. So it's quite low. And despite that fact, we still have quite few sponsors. I try to ask few people, few long-time packageers if they want to become sponsors. And to my surprise they were not interested in. Mostly the response was something like why waste the time on newbies when we have the package review, which is quite long. And if I want to get that package, it's probably in that package review from somebody already in Federa and I will spend less time on the review because it will be likely more better. So I'm not sure if we are able to find more sponsors, but we can definitely make some marketing. So please become a sponsor, spend your time on the newbies, something like that. I mean the sponsors group is an invite group. You don't apply to become a sponsor, but you get nominated. No, but you can submit tickets. You can ask. Okay, right. And then we are voting. We could just say, you could approach the existing sponsors and tell each of them how many was it, 135. You now make a suggestion for somebody else becoming a sponsor. If we all did, we would just double the number. I think anybody that wants it, she requested it already. Maybe there's a few that don't know the process, but the cage don't think, I might like to do that, but the barrier is really low. I mean those criteria, I mean I lowered them about as much as I thought was reasonable. And then all you do is follow track to it. There's only been... Freddie speaking, for all the people we rejected from becoming a sponsor, we rejected them for a reason. I think there's no way we can further lower the bar. Yeah, I agree. But it's just a marketing thing. Yeah, it's more about marketing and the tools. For example, I said, because when you submit the package and you wait, I remember when I done that, and I had somebody in red who done the review, so it was quite fast in the end, but still I waited like days and I was the newbie and I have nothing to do as, what should I do? I was waiting days and I was feeling like I'm wasting my time, I was young and I wanted to do something. And so what about suggesting them that point them to copper and say, okay, as part of the review process, you should maintain your package for some time in copper first. One of the reason is that the people doesn't have the endurance, so some people try to do the review and quit within a month. And some sponsors were feeling, or even they get the package in the Federa, but then after a year they left Federa. So some sponsors answered that they were frustrated from this and they were feeling like wasting their time on somebody who left very soon the Federa. So then we'll show that guys have endurance if they are able to maintain copper as it refers. Question? I like the idea because if someone is able to maintain a package in copper, it's likely that they will be able to maintain the structure in Federa. That's a big problem. I suppose people that remain one year disappear totally. So that happens. Yeah, but if that happened too often? If I were to come into more sponsoring and I knew that they would say, I'm not saying that they should not tell me, but don't vanish at all. Or at least even shoot out the headache. I fear that I'm not maintaining anything, but it's a help. Yeah. Have you ever tried to take a look on those reviews which are waiting for a sponsor? How big is the activity of the sponsoring? I mean, I have the experience like if there is such a small ticket, it is usually like it was submitted let's say a year ago and since that moment there is no activity at all. Well, from such guy I would expect like yes, I cared about the package, I regularly updated the package and I would expect that the box office would be updating with updates of the package and so on. But typically this is not true. And yes, if that happened that there was a guy who was not sponsored for nine years, yes, that's... Well, I would say it's good and bad because like he's shown his endurance and he's shown that he's capable to maintain and take care about the package for such a long time because he had some reason to do that. But otherwise I would sponsor everybody just because for them it's one time short and... But this Hilifex guy is example of somebody who worked for... usually for some company he maintained some piece of software there and he should do that anyway and he's just willing, okay, I will put that in Debian, in Federa but on the very first obstacle they will stop and they said today boss, okay, I tried but there was some obstacle and it's no go. I don't feel sorry. If there's stuff on the first occasion I don't feel sorry for them. We have a mechanism for getting more into the sale packages. They get offered and they go away and I would love to see the actual number of where the requester is still active and where we're still on our on the sponsor side. Not too many, but there are some. It's just... I stopped looking a while back because there was too much stuff and my problem was people would just bomb and refute you with half a billion Node.js packages and it just wasn't worth my time to sort through all of that. But, I mean, I found very few that people that were still interested or active and couldn't find me really. Most of them, they ran into an asshole reviewer like me and then found some problem and then just disappeared because I didn't say yes and you know. The review stays open. Eventually, you know, I used to go through every few months and ping all the reviews and close the ones and I just felt that my time was better still elsewhere. Speaking of time, I'm all for it. Okay, good idea. So, we can pursue that. We spoke about it previously. It's just like the other talk we had. The technology is there to help you. It serves a purpose. But it's not everything. If we could just focus on the get an idea of if the guide has understood the guidelines and get rid of all the paperwork. I'm all for it. Adam. I'm restricted maybe to if we get these all reviews that would make it less work to show the knowledge of time. I want them to focus on actual reviews because that's helping the staff. They mark points to get sponsored and I close the review on their behalf. Isn't there like a guideline that says or maybe that was just my personal guideline. In order for me to sponsor you I want you to take place to participate in at least three other reviews. That is not a hard guideline. It's your responsibility. It's your responsibility. You can sponsor anyone for any reason at any time. Okay. That's what it means. Once you get to that point you can do whatever you want. It is up to you because but the job of the sponsor is to assist that person getting through the process of getting their reviewed already reviewed package into the distribution and out and updated when they need it which means that you are on the hook for at least a year to help these people with the questions that they have. That's what it means. You are not taking responsibility if they don't want to because somebody else reviewed it already. Maybe we just need to get more to the snowball system. One of the reasons I got sponsored I got sponsored and I became a sponsor pretty quickly but the reason why it was Limbouz sponsored me was not only sponsored me but made me a sponsor or asked if it was okay to nominate me if it was as soon as the candidate has become a sponsor himself you are no longer responsible for that for him. So like this snowball approach we all as sponsors should encourage other to become sponsors which then again or like each of us should encourage whenever you have a sponsor somebody new encourage them to do private reviews and get sponsored that's interesting the snowball approach maybe we need to visualize this because there is no easy way to see how many people you sponsored. Now that's true it's always been a problem I think FAS3 might help I keep a list of it but we keep more it's cumbersome. The only real way to do it is you have to have database access and you just do an SQL part and everybody should just nominate five new people who list of people in FAS and just okay now I would like to focus on because all these doesn't help with those stalled reviews which are waiting for years there so there are two suggestions so I may highlight somehow the bugzillas which are waiting where the last comment is from the reporter so it's very likely waiting for the sponsor I even try to assess some bugzillas where if it is assigned to a sponsor and he's waiting for two years and sponsor doesn't react I will reset it back to nobody because some people filter that if it is assigned so it's in progress it doesn't look in their searches but even some sponsors suggest that it should send more emails because if you are in some bugzilla and which is waiting for two years you get the last email two years ago and it's very likely sleep of your mind so you must intentionally go to bugzilla on your status on the reviews I'm not sure how many people do that so we can somehow highlight these bugzillas I don't know how or there was other suggestion from somebody that we try the IETF seqdeer approach when you can take the review assign it to somebody with a deadline random people, random sponsor set the deadline if the deadline is not met then remove the sponsor from circulation temporarily and assign it to somebody so if the review no one take it for six months let's say one year I don't know I still no one take it so why not assign it to somebody and even if there is Java I will try my best can I just say I'm not a Java guy please assign it to somebody else shouldn't be better I find the Java guy I think that very important aspect is specialization mentioned earlier so personally I will not review any no Java package I'm Java only as far as I know there is no Java it's about it's about setting the tools so it can be either some tools dump script which assign it to somebody or we can set up Wiki page where everyone stay in specialization and it will be done manually and someone say okay here is the which is waiting for six months for somebody the Wiki for best guy and I will assign it to somebody and if you say I don't want I will assign it to somebody else it's up to us I don't know I'm trying it can be tracking back in Godzilla so we have FAA need sponsor and it can be FAA need sponsor Java or something like that I don't think it's needed but I really like it's a simple I know at least people who understands federal packaging so it might be you that I will ask you for help in the review or I can ask somebody who is non-sponsored on his in Java packages so let's make the review when I sponsor the guy and that would work for me so I because if somebody is packaging some job but somebody else reviews it but the guy's got a functional package in the package reviewer did his job then what I have to do is say yes this is how you run Fedpack this is how you import stuff let me make sure that you got all of your keys are uploaded and you have problems with that and here's how you do your builds and okay now your things in Modi and you know now you can see if you can get karma and then they start and then 3 months later they come back and say well what's this branch thing and what do I do for the next police when can I update my package on questions like that that's what the sponsors around for the problem is the terminology is probably not correct we have people who are new packages that means their reviews are going to be more difficult to take more time probably because they don't know things the people who are going to help to shepherd them through the system we used to say the sponsor was the person who did all that but it's not necessarily what it is when you see the need sponsor it means your review is probably going to be more difficult because you're dealing with somebody who hasn't done this before but that's something that tells the reviewer it's almost as if we need two separate designations somebody should say they're a new package here that means the review is going to be harder but once the review gets done they're going to need a shepherd instead of a sponsor a guy maybe I've got one idea during the presentation on her talk about I'm contributing now what that we can upload somebody's shepherd work from Sponsory because a lot of them is repeating like there is the first branching here and now suddenly first branching what do I do? what that means so can we prepare some documents, youtube videos whatever recommendation wiki page and use data grabber and when the branching appears find most recent sponsors who doesn't come through the branching yet email new contributors and this is your first branching you need this learn about this or you submitted your package for the rohe and now it's time to learn about body here is the documentation etc so make it automatically and some which are doing anyway let's automate it the first one having a simplistic documentation just take the most important part of wiki and make it simple it should be readable on at least two pages 27 step joint document that we have now and the slide in this series is more about the workflow making a coloring book just asking you what do I do and what happens and what's a good candidate for a coloring book not necessarily a coloring book but we have sort of done something it went under the term of fedora gas group by the time which the term is now used for something else but the fedora example like we have the example package for new packager you check it out from it you create a patch you build that you build a patch or whatever like a step by step tutorial or even the branching thing could be done before the actual branching and we can make those fedora classrooms and use that for those new buys again to locate them on the stuff because and tell them about the stuff we have because it's hard to find a sponsor but I remember on the vlog it was two years ago there was like some talk about okay let's talk about packaging and there will be sponsors who are willing to sponsors your package but there was only the sponsors okay we are running out of time I got one radical proposal it starts just ignore everything sponsor and whatever when somebody shows up and wants to package not that they have already made a package and figured out how to dump it in mudzilla and all that before that give a place where people can come say I wish to submit package here's the things I want to work on design three mentors from the pool of however we decide and this bull should be big and hopefully we can find people who would want to do this not one because one person can disappear get three or even more and those people will be your contacts and they will help you get all the way through the process and they may suggest that you go to doctor first if that's the kind of package what they want to do if somebody is trying to package some time utility or something you can have an easy way but somebody who wants to do something big is going to need more shepherding more help probably going to want something deployed through copper so that it doesn't they don't get stuck in a review queue people can actually use and test their stuff can you remind me another point maybe you're also having a problem that speaks the same native language that wouldn't hurt at least just one person that's going to be their mentor so you start and do a mentor yes in the ambassadors project we learned that the native language or even the country the local and the U.S. French guy probably know that because your community is French so that helps so we pull together people who know packaging people who are part of the ambassador or regional group that could perhaps better assist the person when we have language difficulties et cetera and that will be that person's team that they can all talk together you see so a person gets a team of people not all of whom have to do a ton of work right but they have to be available and then we can get them into the technologies and this gets all the way to the point where okay they've gotten their Fedora account and they signed them they've gotten to that point now they can submit and say look I want to do packaging I want to package some stuff at that point they should be able to get a group of people and not just like well there's a ton of people on IRC that will help you but actual names and faces they get is there a way I mean we could run prologos with bugzilla queries for all the stalled FVU but it's probably hard to actually do reasonable bugzilla queries I mentioned that horrible page that I put up years ago that I stopped working on it because we were supposed to have this fancy new review system that never happened but back to back to your idea of the a signed team or something like that how about we randomly automatically sign we make sure at least three people are always set on CC for the important and ideally it would be an intelligent selection based on FAS based on the locale or the FAS and such like if it's a german that always assign him one ideally three german sponsors if that's not available at least one german sponsor or something geographically near so I'm not suggesting all of them next is the next step if somebody removes himself from the CC group assign somebody new to make sure it's always few people until somebody has picked up the buck and assigned it to himself okay guys I will have to stop the recording but of course we can continue with that discussion tomorrow or later we have a tour walking tour and I will write notes from this session and we'll send them to Federa sponsor mailing me send it to everyone because more people than erotivel sponsors there are more people than sponsors who need to be and now just for the users who are watching this stream I will tell you something secret which was not told here