[Development] Approver status

[Daker Pinheiro]

I believe that trust in the work is what we want to measure.
The maintainers and approvers should indicate and vote for members to
become approvers or maintainers.
As trust is a subjective measure, numbers of bugs fixed and their relevance
will be implicitly considered as their
criteria.

Br,

On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 7:29 AM, <andre.poenitz at nokia.com> wrote:

>
> 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.
>
> Andre'
> _______________________________________________
> Development mailing list
> Development at qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
>



-- 
Daker Fernandes Pinheiro
OpenBossa
http://codecereal.blogspot.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20120525/137ad302/attachment.html>