Attract QA'ers (was: Re: k3b fedora.us reviews or new maintainer wanted!)

[Erik LaBianca]

> 
> I think Erik and you should be permitted to set the PUBLISH keyword
with
> one review, so you could be more productive and increase your
experience
> by learning from mistakes, too. There's one single de-motivating thing
and
> that is if new reviewers seem to wait endlessly for a second review.
> 

There may be some benefit to relaxing the 2-review requirement until
critical mass is achieved. I think it's important not to get too caught
up in "policy" and "quality" arguments when it's obvious that the rate
of approval is so low. Here and now is probably the place for the
discussion.

> > As an proposal, I think QA'ers should make sure they set the
NEEDSWORK
> > keyword and remove the QA keyword when they think the package should
be
> > improved. This would reduce the queue, and make it "cleaner" :
> 
> But don't forget that a big portion of the queue has a very special
target
> group (e.g. lots of educational programming languages). These packages
are
> very unlikely to be reviewed by someone who has no interest in them.
And
> in particular not, if they don't even build flawlessly, because such
> package requests result in a lot of work.

This is a problem, and will continue to be one. Perhaps we should
suggest to packagers that they attempt to round up their own QA crew
among people who might actually use the package? 

We need to streamline the QA process enough that these types of people
can get up to speed and provide at least 1 of the reviews. 

--erik