[Development] Approver status

lars.knoll at nokia.com lars.knoll at nokia.com
Fri May 25 08:27:13 CEST 2012

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 discussion to nail down the details at the
contributor summit. It's only a couple of weeks away, and these things are
usually discussed a lot easier in such a setting.


On 5/24/12 10:36 PM, "ext André Pönitz"
<andre.poenitz at mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:

>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 attributable to the nominee. The attributable activities
>   should typically exceed N lines of new, or M lines of changed
>   code, or P hours of activities on behalf of the project."
>N, M, and P are open for discussion, as well as the wording,
>here, and perhaps at the Summit.
>I understand that "Lines of Code" is an extremely bad measure for
>almost everything, but given that we talk about a project in the
>seven digits number of LOC, expecting N, M, and P, in the, say,
>three, four, and two digits range respectively does not appear
>overly unreasonable to me.
>On a related note, I also think it would be sensible to move the
>barrier of entrance to "Handle JIRA" into the opposite direction.
>Triaging issues or verification of fixes are definitely tedious and
>reputable activities, but I don't think they necessarily need
>preceding contributions, nor long term dedication.
>Development mailing list
>Development at qt-project.org

More information about the Development mailing list