Dear Vít, Thank you for your reply. I am indeed following the official guidelines and currently working through the sponsorship process. I have already submitted and received approvals for several EPEL packages, including `gftp` and `meld`. My Bugzilla activity, packaging logs, and GitHub repositories are all publicly available for inspection. However, the issue I raised goes beyond the "how" of becoming a contributor. It concerns **how non-packager contributions are treated during the transition period**, when individuals *are actively contributing but not yet formally sponsored*. In particular: - I rebuilt and validated `opendmarc` for EPEL10 long before the Bodhi update. - I published all artifacts and test results publicly, following open-source norms. - I filed relevant Bugzilla reports and offered co-maintainership in good faith. - Due to infrastructure limitations from Japan (SSH access issue #12602), I was unable to push directly to dist-git — but I followed every other available channel. My concern is that in such cases, **efforts are ignored simply because the contributor is not yet in the group**, even if the work is technically valid and production-tested. The procedural barrier becomes a cultural barrier, and that is worth reflection. I strongly support Fedora’s mission and values. I only ask that early-stage contributors be treated with the same respect and transparency as established ones — especially when the quality of contribution is verifiable. Best regards, Akiyoshi Kurita (FAS: redadmin) -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
