[Development] Nominating Iikka Eklund as approver

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 02:12:17PM +0100, Koehne Kai wrote:
> Anyhow, you might then start to wonder whether anyone who's an
> approver for qt-creator necessarily needs approver rights for
> qtwebkit, qt-creator etc ...
>
yes, i've been wondering, too. the model as it was originally designed
simply does not account for the fact that there are several projects
under the qt-project umbrella that rather significantly differ in some
details, like the branch+submit policy. therefore it would be quite
reasonable to have specific approver groups (i think that would be qt,
qtcreator, webkit and qa+rm currently). of course this has the downside
of additional overhead, but realistically speaking, this would have no
impact on by far most contributors.

> I think it's reasonable to expect that people exercise their approver
> rights with care, and only use it were appropriate.
>  
one would think so. but we *did* already see things go wrong because
approvers made assumptions about "trivial" things in projects they are
not involved in.

> > fwiw, this is not the only nomination in recent times that makes me scratch
> > my head ...
> 
> Yes, seems we've not yet a common understanding of the actual
> requirements for becoming an approver.
> My personal check list would be: [...]
> 
seems quite reasonable to me.
however - just restating what i said before, - one additional "soft"
requirement for me is that the person is at least *somewhat* involved
outside their specific subproject. otherwise we see "inbreeding": people
who don't quite have the feeling for the standards of the project as a
whole.
of course one could argue from the "use your rights with care"
perspective, but i really don't like the idea that the universal
approver label wouldn't quite live up to the universality it suggests.