Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 11:39:03AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Saturday 30 December 2006 10:52, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > So for checking whether your single-worded "APPROVED" is correct or
> > not the whole work needs to be repeated instead of checking that you
> > reviewed the mandatory items. Sorry, but that's nowhere near quality
> > control.
> 
> Just looking to see if the checklist was pasted isn't quality control either.  
> The only way to _actually_ check that things were reviewed is to do the 
> review yourself.  A spot check.  Anything less is trusting the reviewer did 
> the right thing, and if you're already doing that, what does it matter if 
> they just listed APPROVED or if they copy/pasted a long list of check items?

If you do find a broken review item and you have a checklist where the
reviewer explicitely marked this item as checked, then you know that
he was wrong or extremely sloppy. When doing a simple APPROVED you
can't tell whether he missed it for thinking he has memorized all
guidelines.
-- 
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/20061230/3b3c5dc0/attachment.sig>