-1 from me.

Sam asked via pkgdb for commit bits for several Ruby packages, without even contacting me why I should approve him. So I first approved his commit rights on rubygem-bundler, which resulted in almost 3 months of silence and two weeks (so far) of broken package since his first commit.

I am unclear what "will permit me to work more fluidly" means.

Replying to [comment:1 vondruch]:

-1 from me.

Sam asked via pkgdb for commit bits for several Ruby packages, without even contacting me why I should approve him. So I first approved his commit rights on rubygem-bundler, which resulted in almost 3 months of silence and two weeks (so far) of broken package since his first commit.

I don't want to get into it, but that's not true. I reached out directly after applying for access and we've talked several times after. Additionally, the issue you're talking about is something we've been working to get an upstream fix completed for, which is why I haven't yet fixed it.

I am unclear what "will permit me to work more fluidly" means.

It seems pretty clear to me: I work on lots of packages with complex dependencies and often have to provide fixes or apply for commit on those packages in order to make changes for the packages I maintain.

Replying to [comment:2 skottler]:

Replying to [comment:1 vondruch]:

-1 from me.

Sam asked via pkgdb for commit bits for several Ruby packages, without even contacting me why I should approve him. So I first approved his commit rights on rubygem-bundler, which resulted in almost 3 months of silence and two weeks (so far) of broken package since his first commit.

I don't want to get into it, but that's not true. I reached out directly after applying for access and we've talked several times after. Additionally, the issue you're talking about is something we've been working to get an upstream fix completed for, which is why I haven't yet fixed it.

Actually yes, you reached me when applying for commit bits for Ruby. Sorry, my mistake.

I am unclear what "will permit me to work more fluidly" means.

It seems pretty clear to me: I work on lots of packages with complex dependencies and often have to provide fixes or apply for commit on those packages in order to make changes for the packages I maintain.

Still not sure what is you plan. I am asking for commit bits, when I want to do something, i.e. I have already patch in my hands.

Here [1] is list of your activity in Koji. I see 42 build in total and you build just 8 packages of 53 you have currently commit bits. So what more you want to do?

[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=2217

Replying to [comment:3 vondruch]:

Replying to [comment:2 skottler]:

Replying to [comment:1 vondruch]:

-1 from me.

Sam asked via pkgdb for commit bits for several Ruby packages, without even contacting me why I should approve him. So I first approved his commit rights on rubygem-bundler, which resulted in almost 3 months of silence and two weeks (so far) of broken package since his first commit.

I don't want to get into it, but that's not true. I reached out directly after applying for access and we've talked several times after. Additionally, the issue you're talking about is something we've been working to get an upstream fix completed for, which is why I haven't yet fixed it.

Actually yes, you reached me when applying for commit bits for Ruby. Sorry, my mistake.

I am unclear what "will permit me to work more fluidly" means.

It seems pretty clear to me: I work on lots of packages with complex dependencies and often have to provide fixes or apply for commit on those packages in order to make changes for the packages I maintain.

Still not sure what is you plan. I am asking for commit bits, when I want to do something, i.e. I have already patch in my hands.

Here [1] is list of your activity in Koji. I see 42 build in total and you build just 8 packages of 53 you have currently commit bits. So what more you want to do?

So, for example, I'm currently about to start working on getting Riak and many pieces of the Erlang stack built in EPEL7. Some of the packages I need to change (I think it's somewhere around a dozen of them in this category) I currently don't have commit on. I figured I would apply for proven packager since this is just one a few cases recently that I've run into where being able to work on packages I don't already have commit on for relatively small changes would be useful.

If FESCo thinks I should do more work across the stack before getting provenpackager then that's no problem, either.

[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/userinfo?userID=2217

For what it's worth, +1 from me. I've worked with skottler on packaging tasks in the past with very positive experiences.

+1 for me, all dealing I've had with Sam have been positive.

Summary: -1 from me.

Replying to [comment:1 vondruch]:

Sam asked via pkgdb for commit bits for several Ruby packages,
without even contacting me why I should approve him.

And this happened to me. Please understand that getting provenpackager does not mean
that you can do everything at your will without getting in good touch with other maintainers.

Also looking current pkgdb and koji build, as Vít said your current commitment seems
very low. For ~30 erlang related packages, you seems to haveonly EPEL commitment right
and actually no builds currently for these packages. I think you should do some
more experience before becoming provenpackager.

Replying to [comment:7 mtasaka]:

Summary: -1 from me.

Replying to [comment:1 vondruch]:

Sam asked via pkgdb for commit bits for several Ruby packages,
without even contacting me why I should approve him.

And this happened to me. Please understand that getting provenpackager does not mean
that you can do everything at your will without getting in good touch with other maintainers.

Well, as Vit said above, that didn't actually happen. To be frank I also don't remember doing this for one of your packages after looking at the list of what you maintain; I've always (at least tried) to reach out immediately after asking for commit.

Also looking current pkgdb and koji build, as Vít said your current commitment seems
very low. For ~30 erlang related packages, you seems to haveonly EPEL commitment right
and actually no builds currently for these packages. I think you should do some
more experience before becoming provenpackager.

As a fellow Erlang maintainer I'd love to see more people working with me to make Erlang better. Especially on updating Riak which usually cost me ~2-4 weeks of my spare time - build everything, fix test failures (if any), submit build overrides, ensure that all dependencies are met, etc. Unfortunately I don't know much about Sam but I hope to synchronize my Erlang- and Riak-related plans with Sam's ones, and I'd like to help him with EPEL branches. Contrary to others here I'm not afraid of Sam's lack of field experience - Erlang is extremely simple language, and anybody could learn it quite fast. Likewise packaging in general is not a rocket science either.

Also I do believe we created too much barriers for others. I strongly believe our Fedora teammates should have more abilities to handle packages. I absolutely disagree with the false concept of "somebody's packages" - this idea seems to be somewhat popular among few our fellow maintainers. I still remember good old days when everyone could patch everything in Fedora Extras. In contrast to that, for example, currently newcomers usually spend months on trying to touch orphaned packages, which is terribly slow. I personally would rather fix other's issues than avoiding them to participate because of the fears that they could do something wrongly.

So as an Erlang packager and as a concerned Fedora Project teammate I'm raising my +1 for Sam as a provenpackager.

And as far as I tried to search on bugzilla, I could found 4 review requests submitted or reviewed by you...? skottler@fedoraproject.org returned 0, and skottler@redhat.com returned 4. I again think more experience is needed.

Replying to [comment:10 mtasaka]:

And as far as I tried to search on bugzilla, I could found 4 review requests submitted or reviewed by you...? skottler@fedoraproject.org returned 0, and skottler@redhat.com returned 4. I again think more experience is needed.

Great, so I'm offering to help and trying to move barriers out of my way so I can be more efficient and your answer is ad hominem. Thanks.

Replying to [comment:11 skottler]:

Replying to [comment:10 mtasaka]:

And as far as I tried to search on bugzilla, I could found 4 review requests submitted or reviewed by you...? skottler@fedoraproject.org returned 0, and skottler@redhat.com returned 4. I again think more experience is needed.

Great, so I'm offering to help and trying to move barriers out of my way so I can be more efficient and your answer is ad hominem. Thanks.

I cannot grasp why you say this as "ad hominem" (please be careful for what you are saying), however this is actually needed per provenpackager's requirement, see:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Provenpackager_policy

QUOTE:
and who are familiar with the packaging guidelines

So to check if the requesting person actually has enough skill for packaging guidelines, checking package reviews by the requesting person is very usual.

I went through owned package:
cppunit
erlang-basho_metrics
erlang-basho_stats
erlang-bear

well at this point I decided to skip all erlang-* packages as they look like same

nagios-plugins
nrpe
python-cloudfiles
riak
rubygem-minitest
^^ all this packages contains NO commit from Sam. So only one package he owns have commits from him.

Because I know that he contribute to puppet I check it. And for example last commit shows that he is not aware of some habits:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Saving_state_between_scriptlets

So unless you provide us with non-trivial list of packages, where you actually contributed... then:
-1 from me