[Development] Long time before becoming approver?
eike.ziller at nokia.com
eike.ziller at nokia.com
Thu Nov 3 10:50:45 CET 2011
One could also handle the "relevant people might be on vacation" issue by giving approvers a "probation period" where they are approvers in gerrit, but the status can be revoked without the hassle of a "vote of no confidence", to give people who where not available for some reason the chance to still raise concerns.
1) proposal + seconded
2) after n-weeks (1? 2?) --> approver on probation
3) after n more weeks (1? 2?) --> approver
Just an idea.
Btw, I don't think the governance model handles how changes to the governance model itself are done :)
--
Eike Ziller
Principal Software Engineer
Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks
Nokia gate5 GmbH
Firmensitz: Invalidenstr. 117, 10115 Berlin, Germany
Registergericht: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg, Berlin: HRB 106443 B
Umsatzsteueridentifikationsnummer: DE 812 845 193
Geschäftsführer: Dr. Michael Halbherr, Karim Tähtivuori
________________________________________
From: development-bounces+eike.ziller=nokia.com at qt-project.org [development-bounces+eike.ziller=nokia.com at qt-project.org] on behalf of ext João Abecasis [joao.abecasis at nokia.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2011 10:34
To: ext Thiago Macieira
Cc: development at qt-project.org
Subject: Re: [Development] proposing Richard Moore as approver
On Nov 2, 2011, at 11:52 AM, ext Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 de November de 2011 11:14:47 Olivier Goffart wrote:
>> On Tuesday 01 November 2011 16:00:30 Peter Hartmann wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt
>>> project.
>>>
>>> Rich has made numerous high-quality commits to the Qt SSL code and knows
>>> Qt very well, being a KDE contributor since the very beginning.
>>>
>>> Shane Kearns and Martin Petersson second this proposal.
>>>
>>> Please raise any concerns you might have about this until 22nd of
>>> November 2011 (see the guide lines at
>>> http://wiki.qt-project.org/The_Qt_Governance_Model#How_to_become_an_Approv
>>> er ).
>>
>> I know it is not needed, but I also recommand Richard as an approver.
>>
>> But am I alone to think that 3 weeks of waiting time is a lot?
>> 15 work day is a lot, how about reducing it to something between 7 and 10
>> work days?
>
> I think the number was chosen so that people who might be on vacations have
> the time to react. But I agree it's a bit high.
On the other hand, maintainers and approvers who vouch for proposed approvers can already Rubber-Stamp their review recommendations in gerrit without doing the review themselves. In practice, that's what being and approver means: others trust your review decisions.
Given that we all hope and expect Qt, its approvers and maintainers to be active for a long while is the waiting time such and impediment?
(For the record, I'm not opposed to reducing the waiting time for approvers)
Cheers,
João
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development at qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
More information about the Development
mailing list