> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Oswald Buddenhagen > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 12:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Development] Nominating Iikka Eklund as approver > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 01:32:09PM +0000, Koehne Kai wrote: > > Parts of the packaging process is in gerrit (namely qtsdk/qtsdk.git), > > > so he should be really be able to stage things :) > > > uh, wtf?! nothing against iikka specifically (couldn't judge it), but this is > so > totally *not* a reason to make someone an approver. in areas where no > approvers typically operate (mostly playground projects), we create special- > purpose groups where the involved people have the rights they need to get > the work done. approver status is supposed to be earned by displaying > reasonably universal competence within the project, not being the only guy > available to check +2 in a particular area.
I guess giving Iikka local approver privileges for qtsdk.git would cut it, too. Anyhow, you might then start to wonder whether anyone who's an approver for qt-creator necessarily needs approver rights for qtwebkit, qt-creator etc ... I think it's reasonable to expect that people exercise their approver rights with care, and only use it were appropriate. > fwiw, this is not the only nomination in recent times that makes me scratch > my head ... Yes, seems we've not yet a common understanding of the actual requirements for becoming an approver. My personal check list would be: - has the person the technical skill to be able to judge other people's contributions in his area of interest & expertise? - does he know about coding style, commit style etc? - does he follow the relevant mailing lists closely enough to be informed about changes & global announcements? - does he know which branches one should commit to? - has the person shown in the past that he's reasonable , and can one expect to exercise his rights with care? - is it expected that the person will continue to contribute? - finally, does the project as such gain anything if he gets an approver? F.ex., does he review fixes were there's no (official or de-facto) maintainer that wants to review the same changes anyway? All of this should be seen in the context of the area of interest & expertise. A person developing Qt Declarative for instance doesn't have to necessarily follow the qt-creator mailing list, nor know which branch to commit to there. A person working on docs doesn't have to know the details of the C++ coding style, but if you're approving doc changes you better know qdoc. And so on and so on. I think all of the above can be checked for Iikka for the area of packaging, so I don't see a reason for him not becoming an approver. Regards Kai > ______________________________________________ > 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
