One could also handle the "relevant people might be on vacation" issue by giving approvers a "probation period" where they are approvers in gerrit, but the status can be revoked without the hassle of a "vote of no confidence", to give people who where not available for some reason the chance to still raise concerns.
1) proposal + seconded 2) after n-weeks (1? 2?) --> approver on probation 3) after n more weeks (1? 2?) --> approver Just an idea. Btw, I don't think the governance model handles how changes to the governance model itself are done :) -- Eike Ziller Principal Software Engineer Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks Nokia gate5 GmbH Firmensitz: Invalidenstr. 117, 10115 Berlin, Germany Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Berlin: HRB 106443 B Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer: DE 812 845 193 Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Halbherr, Karim Tähtivuori ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of ext João Abecasis [[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:34 To: ext Thiago Macieira Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Development] proposing Richard Moore as approver 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 _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
