Appears to own 17 packages: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/mcpierce?acls=owner&acls=approveacls&acls=commit

9 package reviews either completed or in progress: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?email1=dpierce%40redhat.com&emailassigned_to1=1&emailtype1=substring&component=Package%20Review&query_format=advanced&list_id=587276

I took a look over those package reviews and while the earlier ones seem a bit too cursory to me, they've gotten better over time. It may be close, but I believe this meets the criteria we've laid out.

+1

Sorry for my late action on this; I was out for most of the weekend.

The vote stands at one in favor and none against, for a +1 differential. This does not meet the threshold of a +3 vote differential required, and thus the vote does not pass.

Sorry, do I have to solicit votes for this or do voters regularly check these requests? I didn't ask anybody to vote since I wasn't sure of the process after opening a ticket.

Here's an outline of the "becoming a sponsor" process:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_sponsor_a_new_contributor#Becoming_a_Fedora_Package_Collection_Sponsor

You don't have to solicit votes. Every existing sponsor receives a copy of the correspondence on this ticket, and just to be sure I verified that they were going out by asking a couple of people.

I cannot explain why no other sponsors chose to vote; it's not mandatory for them to do so and I cannot read their minds. My being out of pocket even gave a few extra days for people to weigh in. In the end all I can suggest is that you do more review work and try again.