Implied rejection seems right then, if combined with a reasonable age gate (what would be reasonable?)
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 9:00 PM, Yoonsoo Kim <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Thanks for your comments. > Please, find my inline comments. > > BR, > --- > Yoonsoo Kim(ys71.kim AT samsung.com) > Principal SW Engineer/Software Architect > Mobile R&D Office > Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hanchett, Paul [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, November 07, 2013 1:01 PM > > To: Yoonsoo Kim > > Cc: Mats Wichmann; [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Dev] [Remind] API Change Request(ACR) Review Process > > > > It would be better for an unreviewed item to be escalated for > consideration by > > another reviewer-- > > > Who will escalate an unreviewed item to whom? > The practical thing is that reviewers are very unlikely to fail to review > ACRs according to my experiences. > So, if you think "implied consent" rule is problematic, then I'd like to > propose following "implied rejection" rule. The escalation rule may impose > another complexity to the process. > One more thing I want to tell you is that discussion on feature itself and > design alternatives will be discussed on JIRA and the dev mailing list. An > ACR is a kind of a sub-item of a predefined work, not creating a new work. > > > 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:쟰[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. 쟔till, 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. 쟕here'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. > > > 쟄as 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
