On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 02:12 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 09.10.2008, 20:01 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:41:32AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
> > >> Let's get the final two packages reviewed -- and that's another area
> > >> where we could do with some improvement, because failing to approve
> > >> packages really _is_ verging on the 'deletionism' you spoke of. But
> > >> that's a separate discussion.
> > >
> > >Agreed, we can discuss this later. BTW: The word "deletionsm" did not
> > >come from me, it was Josh who said that, but of course I agree with him.
> >
> > I didn't say that. Though I agree we need to be getting more packages
> > approved.
>
> I think this is something we all agree on.

I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.

It won't be _mandatory_ -- we're not going to send the boys round to
visit a FESCo member who doesn't do it. But FESCo should be setting a
good example.

And anyone else who considers themselves an active member of the Fedora
development community should also try to do the same. If one a week
isn't realistic due to other commitments, set yourself a more relaxed
target -- like one a fortnight, or one a month, and try to stick to
that.

Too many people (myself included) are just leaving the reviews unloved.

When new contributors submit packages and can't get through the
bureaucracy of getting them reviewed and approved, we are turning away
the very people we should be embracing.

--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

> On Fri, 2008-10-10 at 02:12 +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> Am Donnerstag, den 09.10.2008, 20:01 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer:
>> > On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 01:41:32AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote:
>> > >> Let's get the final two packages reviewed -- and that's another
>> area
>> > >> where we could do with some improvement, because failing to approve
>> > >> packages really _is_ verging on the 'deletionism' you spoke of. But
>> > >> that's a separate discussion.
>> > >
>> > >Agreed, we can discuss this later. BTW: The word "deletionsm" did not
>> > >come from me, it was Josh who said that, but of course I agree with
>> him.
>> >
>> > I didn't say that. Though I agree we need to be getting more packages
>> > approved.
>>
>> I think this is something we all agree on.
>
> I propose that each FESCo member should try to work on at least one
> package review per week. Each week at the FESCo meeting, we'll ask
> members which reviews they've worked on in the past week.
>
> It won't be _mandatory_ -- we're not going to send the boys round to
> visit a FESCo member who doesn't do it. But FESCo should be setting a
> good example.
>
> And anyone else who considers themselves an active member of the Fedora
> development community should also try to do the same. If one a week
> isn't realistic due to other commitments, set yourself a more relaxed
> target -- like one a fortnight, or one a month, and try to stick to
> that.
>
> Too many people (myself included) are just leaving the reviews unloved.
>
> When new contributors submit packages and can't get through the
> bureaucracy of getting them reviewed and approved, we are turning away
> the very people we should be embracing.

+A lot.

> --
> David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
> David.Woodhouse@intel.com Intel Corporation
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>


--
novus ordo absurdum

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list