On 11/3/11 1:05 PM, "ext André Somers" <[email protected]> wrote:
>Hi, > >Frankly, I don't really get this discussion. What is the rush exactly in >appointing approvers? Why is there is need to speed up the appointment >procedure? > >We have /just/ started working with the open governance model. I would >suggest we first try it out in its current form for a while before we >start changing it. That way, we can see what works in practice, instead >of changing the rules while playing the game. As long as no real problems >occur with the current rules, I don't see the need to change them, let >alone complicate them by introducing probation periods and the likes. > >If a serious and urgent need arises, I trust Lars to make the right call >in the interest of the project and use his benevolent dictator powers to >bend the rules for a specific case or force a decision when needed. Thanks for the trust Andre :) I actually agree, let's use the system that we have set up and see how it works before starting to tweak it. Cheers, Lars > > >Andre > > > >On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >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_App >>>>rov >>>> 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 > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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
