It would be better for an unreviewed item to be escalated for consideration by another reviewer--
Do you really want the failure of a reviewer to complete their task to result in unreviewed items being added to the work? Seems wrong to me... Paul Paul Hanchett ------------------- Infotainment Engineer MSX on behalf of Jaguar Land Rover One World Trade Center, 121 Southwest Salmon Street, 11th Floor, Portland, Oregon, 97204 Email: [email protected] ------------------- Business Details: Jaguar Land Rover Limited Registered Office: Abbey Road, Whitley, Coventry CV3 4LF Registered in England No: 1672070 On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 6:51 PM, Yoonsoo Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On > > Behalf Of Mats Wichmann > > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 4:45 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Dev] [Remind] API Change Request(ACR) Review Process > > > > On 11/05/2013 11:38 PM, Yoonsoo Kim wrote: > > > This is a reminder notice for ACR review process. > > > > > > Could anyone of you, who want to participate in API review > > > or are expected to add/change/remove APIs, subscribe to > > > [email protected]? > > > > I'm normally in the camp of being very cautious changing APIs, and the > > process sounds attuned to this, which is okay. Still, there's a slight > > concern here: > > > > >> 2. Designated ACR reviewers give comments on the ACR on the mailing > list > > >> during review. > > >> If they agree on the ACR, add "Reviewed-by: reviewer name <reviewer's > e- > > >> mail>" before > > >> ACR body. > > >> > > >> 3. If the submitter gets "Reviewed-by" tag from all designated ACR > > >> reviewers, he(or she) can upload it to "Tizen APIs" JIRA > > > > we have the possibility of the process stalling if some designated > > reviewers don't actually get to the review. There's no description here > > of "reasonable time for review" and "implied consent" (or "implied > > rejection" if we want to be more cautious), so things can move forward. > > Has this been considered? > > > Mats, you have a point. > > I didn't consider the possibility but I'd like to follow "implied consent" > rule > in case of no response for "reasonable time" because it's the due diligence > of designated reviewers to review submitted ACRs. > > > -- mats > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Dev mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev > > > _______________________________________________ > Dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev >
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
