On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 02:12:17PM +0100, Koehne Kai wrote: > 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 ... > yes, i've been wondering, too. the model as it was originally designed simply does not account for the fact that there are several projects under the qt-project umbrella that rather significantly differ in some details, like the branch+submit policy. therefore it would be quite reasonable to have specific approver groups (i think that would be qt, qtcreator, webkit and qa+rm currently). of course this has the downside of additional overhead, but realistically speaking, this would have no impact on by far most contributors.
> I think it's reasonable to expect that people exercise their approver > rights with care, and only use it were appropriate. > one would think so. but we *did* already see things go wrong because approvers made assumptions about "trivial" things in projects they are not involved in. > > 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: [...] > seems quite reasonable to me. however - just restating what i said before, - one additional "soft" requirement for me is that the person is at least *somewhat* involved outside their specific subproject. otherwise we see "inbreeding": people who don't quite have the feeling for the standards of the project as a whole. of course one could argue from the "use your rights with care" perspective, but i really don't like the idea that the universal approver label wouldn't quite live up to the universality it suggests. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
