To be honest, I don't believe you have maintained your own packages as well as the ones you co-maintain well enough to warrant proven packager status. znc-infobot was a FTBFS for a very long time and spot was even going to block it because of that. I am the only one who has ever done anything with the znc package, such as fixing bugs, updating it, etc.

-1 from me

FYI I am the owner of znc .

And actually you were never approved for commit acls for znc. It was still awaiting review, which I just set to Denied.

Affix pm'ed me on IRC and let me know that there were reasons that he has not been around much lately and thus znc-infobot being FTBFS. I was unaware of this when I made my original comments. I apologize for the tone of my previous comments.

I am still -1, but not near as strongly as before, but now just based on that I don't think he has sufficient experience to become provenpackager, but feel free to apply again at a later date.

-1

nginx : Other maintainers have taken care of the package for a very long time. Last build by user "affix" was on 2011-12-17 ( http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=2638 ). For EPEL 6 only. Turns out pkgdb lists "affix" as being a co-maintainer for EPEL 6 only.

gtk-equinox-engine : Same here. The last 29 builds back to 2010 have been done by other packagers, even for EPEL 6.

libmygpo-qt : Similarly here. There's an open FTBFS ticket ( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/914138 ), btw, and a failed build attempt for el6 on 2012-03-18 with no successful build for el6. No idea what's going on there.

znc-infobot : Lots of room for co-maintaining it properly. It has suffered from broken deps before (in znc bodhi tickets), and I think a co-maintainer has done the znc updates.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/839347 - opened 2012-07-11 - no reply from the assignee (affix).

CVE https://bugzilla.redhat.com/958305 : no activity there?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/925203 : 2013-03-22 - no comment?

If the Fedora package collection contains "forgotten packages", please start the non-responsive maintainer policy. Request access in pkgdb (don't forget "watchbugzilla").

Marking as meeting item. (Likely won't be until next week's meeting)

As I'm not going to make next week's meeting:

For the FESCo case, I defer to the votes from the sponsors in the ticket (ergo, I would be -1 in a FESCo vote).

Given the reservations that the sponsors have, I'm -1 as well.

affix: Please apply to be a comaintainer for the packages that you feel aren't getting enough attention. If the maintainer is non-responsive, please follow http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers to take it over.

Also -1 according to sponsor's comments.

Likewise, given the sponsor's comments, I'm -1 to this proposal.

Your request for provenpackager has been denied by FESCo at the meeting today. We encourage you to continue packaging to gain experience and re-apply at a later date.