Re: [Development] Approver status for Michal Klocek

Hi, Thanks a lot ! Michal On 1 March 2016 at 09:16, Blasche Alexander wrote: > Approver rights have been granted. Congratulations to Michal. > > -- > > Alex > > > From: Blasche Alexander > Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 15:18 > To: development@qt-projec

Re: [Development] Approver status for Michal Klocek

Approver rights have been granted. Congratulations to Michal. -- Alex From: Blasche Alexander Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 15:18 To: development@qt-project.org Subject: Approver status for Michal Klocek Hello, I would like to nominate Michal Klocek fo

Re: [Development] Approver status for Michal Klocek

+1. Good job on Qt Location! Laszlo From: Development on behalf of Michael Brüning Sent: Monday, February 8, 2016 3:26 PM To: development@qt-project.org Subject: Re: [Development] Approver status for Michal Klocek +1 On 02/08/2016 03:18 PM, Blasche

Re: [Development] Approver status for Michal Klocek

+1 On 02/08/2016 03:18 PM, Blasche Alexander wrote: Hello, I would like to nominate Michal Klocek for Approver status in the Qt Project. Throughout the last year he has been working on QtLocation and QtWebEngine: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/q/owner:michal.klocek,n,z -- Alex ___

Re: [Development] Approver status for Michal Klocek

+1 > On 08 Feb 2016, at 15:18, Blasche Alexander > wrote: > > Hello, > > I would like to nominate Michal Klocek for Approver status in the Qt Project. > Throughout the last year he has been working on QtLocation and QtWebEngine: > > https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/q/owner:michal.klocek,n

[Development] Approver status for Michal Klocek

Hello, I would like to nominate Michal Klocek for Approver status in the Qt Project. Throughout the last year he has been working on QtLocation and QtWebEngine: https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/q/owner:michal.klocek,n,z -- Alex ___ Development mai

Re: [Development] Approver status

I'm as interested to see insightful review comments as a bulk of contribution. Put another way, anyone can press the +1 button. The comments that go with a -1 inform how good a reviewer somebody is. -- Subject to local law, communications with Accenture and its a

Re: [Development] Approver status

On 25.05.2012 12:29, andre.poen...@nokia.com 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?

Re: [Development] Approver status

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 F

Re: [Development] Approver status

On 25.5.2012 13.29, "andre.poen...@nokia.com" wrote: > >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 >peopl

Re: [Development] Approver status

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 l

Re: [Development] Approver status

Hi, On 25.05.2012 09:34, André Somers wrote: > Bottom line: let's not introduce rules that are supposed to solve > problems that have not occured, and that are likely to cause more > problems than they might ever prevent occuring in the first place. I > would like to stimulate people to make the m

Re: [Development] Approver status

Op 25-5-2012 11:53, Sylvain Pointeau schreef: On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Laszlo Papp > wrote: > I think that defining fixed number of LOC or hours spend on > the project is not going to work. Please don't go there. I fully agree. I can understand th

Re: [Development] Approver status

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Laszlo Papp wrote: > > I think that defining fixed number of LOC or hours spend on > > the project is not going to work. Please don't go there. > > I fully agree. I can understand the other Andre's point as well, but I > think those are really not too helpful m

Re: [Development] Approver status

On 5/25/12 9:41 AM, "ext Thiago Macieira" wrote: >On sexta-feira, 25 de maio de 2012 06.27.13, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: >> I agree with Andre. Currently we do not have any guiding criteria in >> place, so it's probably difficult to judge when someone is ready to be >> nominated as an approver

Re: [Development] Approver status

> I think that defining fixed number of LOC or hours spend on > the project is not going to work. Please don't go there. I fully agree. I can understand the other Andre's point as well, but I think those are really not too helpful measurements to introduce unfortunately. Perhaps, I need to begi

Re: [Development] Approver status

Op 25-5-2012 9:34, André Somers schreef: > Hi, > > Op 25-5-2012 8:27, lars.kn...@nokia.com schreef: >> I agree with Andre. Currently we do not have any guiding criteria in >> place, so it's probably difficult to judge when someone is ready to be >> nominated as an approver. We've now had one or tw

Re: [Development] Approver status

On sexta-feira, 25 de maio de 2012 06.27.13, lars.kn...@nokia.com wrote: > I agree with Andre. Currently we do not have any guiding criteria in > place, so it's probably difficult to judge when someone is ready to be > nominated as an approver. We've now had one or two cases where people > where b

Re: [Development] Approver status

Hi, Op 25-5-2012 8:27, lars.kn...@nokia.com schreef: > I agree with Andre. Currently we do not have any guiding criteria in > place, so it's probably difficult to judge when someone is ready to be > nominated as an approver. We've now had one or two cases where people > where being nominated a bi

Re: [Development] Approver status

I agree with Andre. Currently we do not have any guiding criteria in place, so it's probably difficult to judge when someone is ready to be nominated as an approver. We've now had one or two cases where people where being nominated a bit too fast for my taste. But I'd propose that we have a discu

[Development] Approver status

Hi all. I'd like to propose the following addition to the "How to become an Approver" section on http://qt-project.org/wiki/The_Qt_Governance_Model: "Nomination for Approver status requires contribution or maintenance of a significant amount of code, or comparable activitities directly a