[Development] Nominating Iikka Eklund as approver

[Simon Hausmann]

On Friday, January 25, 2013 11:33:28 AM Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 01:24:16PM -0800, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On quinta-feira, 24 de janeiro de 2013 12.17.20, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > > > Parts of the packaging process is in gerrit (namely qtsdk/qtsdk.git),
> > > > 
> > > > so he should be really  be able to stage things
> > > 
> > > uh, wtf?! nothing against iikka specifically (couldn't judge it), but
> > > this is so totally not a reason to make someone an approver. in areas
> > 
> > Even taking in consideration what the other replies have said, I still
> > disagree with Ossi's original comment.
> > 
> > Take again my replies to Uli Schlachter's approver proposal: we have to
> > make an exception when a specific skill is required in the project.
> > Iikka's bringing a specific skill that we need, in addition to his
> > current contributions.
> > 
> > This of course requires that the newly-minted approver stays on, helping
> > us
> > with that particular skill.
> 
> this makes no sense at all.
> of course we need people with specific skills - therefore we allow
> anyone to contribute.
> but that does not imply that everyone who fills a specific niche needs
> to be an approver. approver is a specific, purpose-bound designation,
> not a generic "valued contributor" label.

Ossi, does it make more sense if the skill we are talking about here is the 
ability to tell whether a change in their area of expertise is correct or not, 
with a probability of correctness high enough to bring the project forward?

Isn't that the skill that an approver has over a regular contributor?

Simon