[Development] Approver status

andre.poenitz at nokia.com andre.poenitz at nokia.com
Fri May 25 12:29:25 CEST 2012

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 levels
> over modules and time.

Wow. No!

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 people
doing the nomination, saving the hassle of discussing unreasonable nominations,
and prevent the embarassement of being declined for the nominee.

This was briefly discussed before opengov went public, but it wasn't formalized as 
there was the assumption that the nominators would apply such "obviously 
reasonable" lower limits themselves. And yes, I think _that_ has failed (mostly
because "JIRA work" currently "needs" it), that's why I came up with the proposal.


More information about the Development mailing list