I believe that trust in the work is what we want to measure. The maintainers and approvers should indicate and vote for members to become approvers or maintainers. As trust is a subjective measure, numbers of bugs fixed and their relevance will be implicitly considered as their criteria.
Br, On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:29 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > Sven Anderson: > > I also don't think fixed numbers in rules are very wise. What about > > offering some moving average stats of various metrics somewhere (maybe > > they already exist?) and just referring to them in the rules as a guide > > line? That's more dynamic and adapts to the different activity levels > > over modules and time. > > Wow. No! > > The idea was not to have an over-engineered system of random rules, and > also > not to introduce a _scale_, but an extemely low and obviously reasonable > cut-off > point as a minimal barrier of entrance, serving as a guideline for the > people > doing the nomination, saving the hassle of discussing unreasonable > nominations, > and prevent the embarassement of being declined for the nominee. > > This was briefly discussed before opengov went public, but it wasn't > formalized as > there was the assumption that the nominators would apply such "obviously > reasonable" lower limits themselves. And yes, I think _that_ has failed > (mostly > because "JIRA work" currently "needs" it), that's why I came up with the > proposal. > > Andre' > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development > -- Daker Fernandes Pinheiro OpenBossa http://codecereal.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
