On Nov 2, 2011, at 11:52 AM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote: > On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 11:14:47 Olivier Goffart wrote: >> On Tuesday 01 November 2011 16:00:30 Peter Hartmann wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt >>> project. >>> >>> Rich has made numerous high-quality commits to the Qt SSL code and knows >>> Qt very well, being a KDE contributor since the very beginning. >>> >>> Shane Kearns and Martin Petersson second this proposal. >>> >>> Please raise any concerns you might have about this until 22nd of >>> November 2011 (see the guide lines at >>> http://wiki.qt-project.org/The_Qt_Governance_Model#How_to_become_an_Approv >>> er ). >> >> I know it is not needed, but I also recommand Richard as an approver. >> >> But am I alone to think that 3 weeks of waiting time is a lot? >> 15 work day is a lot, how about reducing it to something between 7 and 10 >> work days? > > I think the number was chosen so that people who might be on vacations have > the time to react. But I agree it's a bit high.
On the other hand, maintainers and approvers who vouch for proposed approvers can already Rubber-Stamp their review recommendations in gerrit without doing the review themselves. In practice, that's what being and approver means: others trust your review decisions. Given that we all hope and expect Qt, its approvers and maintainers to be active for a long while is the waiting time such and impediment? (For the record, I'm not opposed to reducing the waiting time for approvers) Cheers, João _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
