ubuntu-bugcontrol team mailing list archive

[James Westby <jw+debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2008-06-06 at 10:56 -0500, HggdH wrote:
> I would like to propose a slightly different approach: 
> 
> * any three can approve, but bug-control administrators have veto power.

My original thought was that two positive reviews and no negative reviews
would be an approval. The same would apply for refusals based on negative
reviews. If there were mixed reviews then there should be further discussion.
In that case I think we would benefit from identifying who was going to make
the call there, and I think the current administrators would fit well for
that role. I'm happy for them to have veto power as well.

My hope for this was just to make it a very streamlined process for
good applications.

> >  
> > > > Additionally, the review process should be limited to a one week
> > > > (calendar) period after the application has posted to the mailing list.
> 
> What happens after one week of no response? Approval by fiat? Or should
> bug-control administration act?

My idea assumed that they would get responses very quickly, so the week
was just to make sure that there were no negative reviews that showed
up after the approval had gone through, so we would have

Approval if there are two positive reviews, and no negative ones, and
at least a week has passed since the application.

Do people think a week is a bit long here?

> 
> This is actually a good point. I suggest we propose that candidates
> should be present in the #ubuntu-bugs -- this will hopefully allow for
> interaction between candidates and others. This should help on receiving
> reviews.

I'm all for encouraging people to this, but I don't think it should be
a requirement for a bugcontrol application.

Thanks,

James