[main] Joining_the_Package_Maintainers.adoc: promote co-maintainer route more? #199

Open
opened 2026-06-15 12:31:31 +00:00 by ankursinha · 1 comment
Member

We received some feedback here at flock that the new package route of getting sponsored has a much steeper learning curve, and it does not necessarily lend itself to mentorship---since people dont' really come in contact with a sponsor until they've submitted a package.

So, we were wondering if promoting the co-maintainer route more would be useful?

  • it ensures that newcomers are linked to existing maintainers, who can guide them and keep an eye on their contributions
  • it is often easier to learn by updating a package/improving it, rather than packaging from scratch

We also need more hands to maintain existing packages.

Thoughts?

We received some feedback here at flock that the new package route of getting sponsored has a much steeper learning curve, and it does not necessarily lend itself to mentorship---since people dont' really come in contact with a sponsor until they've submitted a package. So, we were wondering if promoting the co-maintainer route more would be useful? - it ensures that newcomers are linked to existing maintainers, who can guide them and keep an eye on their contributions - it is often easier to learn by updating a package/improving it, rather than packaging from scratch We also need more hands to maintain existing packages. Thoughts?
Owner

Long-term goal: Make non-packager Pull Requests for packagers work more "naturally" (presumably in forgejo-based distgit)

Long-term goal: Make non-packager Pull Requests for packagers work more "naturally" (presumably in forgejo-based distgit)
Sign in to join this conversation.
No labels
help-wanted
No milestone
No project
No assignees
2 participants
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
packaging/maintainer-docs#199
No description provided.