[Development] Long time before becoming approver?

[André Somers]

Hi,

Frankly, I don't really get this discussion. What is the rush exactly in
appointing approvers? Why is there is need to speed up the appointment
procedure?

We have /just/ started working with the open governance model. I would
suggest we first try it out in its current form for a while before we start
changing it. That way, we can see what works in practice, instead of
changing the rules while playing the game. As long as no real problems
occur with the current rules, I don't see the need to change them, let
alone complicate them by introducing probation periods and the likes.

If a serious and urgent need arises, I trust Lars to make the right call in
the interest of the project and use his benevolent dictator powers to bend
the rules for a specific case or force a decision when needed.

Andre



On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 10:50 AM, <eike.ziller at nokia.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20111103/6fca4d3e/attachment.html>