Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Ville Skyttä]

On Friday 29 December 2006 16:00, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
> The decision went towards a proposed new rule: "the reviewer has to at
> least mention that he checked the license, if the sources match upstream
> and 5 other points he checked when approving a package".

I don't think this makes much sense.  How many points does the one then 
subsequently reviewing that the package was reviewed properly have to add?  
Who verifies that the reviewer of the review of the package did his job 
thoroughly enough?  Etc.

> Site note: the packages will probably get branched now, but the general
> problem remains.

If the problem is bad reviews, then the bar for reviewers needs to be raised.  
IMO requiring people to post some amount of (probably copy-pasteable) 
comments is not the correct fix.