Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:36:13AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Saturday 30 December 2006 06:00, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Why does it have to be all or nothing? So you either just stamp off a
> > package review with a terse aproval notice or have to write a book on
> > it? Try to find a middle ground, which is posting a checklist and
> > anything else you want to post. Other people have done this
> > successfully, check their reviews.
> 
> The checklist is just a condensed version of the guidelines, that will be 
> copied pasted.  It is no more valuable than a 'APPROVED'.  Anybody could 
> copy/paste the checklist, especially if there are items that don't apply 
> (python checks for a perl package).  The only thing it would prove is that 
> they copied the most recent checklist.

Don't forget that they have to actively fill the check list with
values. It's like a pre-flight check. The pilot and co-pilot could
just nod to each other and say "all good". Or they could have a
check-mark after a given list of items to check.

And that's what quality control is: You get a list of specs to check
and return in the checklist with your signature underneath. If the
bananas were rotten and you check-marked bananas as OK, you're
fired.

Whereas now you have the situation "What? pyo files are included now?
Why should I know, I read the guidelines 3 months ago ..."
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061230/dc84cf6a/attachment.sig>