On Fri, Jun 06, 2008 at 05:30:52PM +0100, James Westby wrote: > On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 10:56 -0500, HggdH wrote: > > I would like to propose a slightly different approach: > > > > * any three can approve, but bug-control administrators have veto power. > > My original thought was that two positive reviews and no negative reviews > would be an approval. The same would apply for refusals based on negative > reviews. If there were mixed reviews then there should be further discussion. > In that case I think we would benefit from identifying who was going to make > the call there, and I think the current administrators would fit well for > that role. I'm happy for them to have veto power as well. > > My hope for this was just to make it a very streamlined process for > good applications. > > > > > > > > > Additionally, the review process should be limited to a one week > > > > > (calendar) period after the application has posted to the mailing > > > > > list. > > > > What happens after one week of no response? Approval by fiat? Or should > > bug-control administration act? > > My idea assumed that they would get responses very quickly, so the week > was just to make sure that there were no negative reviews that showed > up after the approval had gone through, so we would have > > Approval if there are two positive reviews, and no negative ones, and > at least a week has passed since the application. > > Do people think a week is a bit long here?
I think it really depends on where we are in the release cycle and using a week provides enough time during the busiest parts. -- Brian Murray @ubuntu.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-bugcontrol Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/people/+me/+editemails More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
