Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

I suspect most people won't read this as the thread probably looks like
a flamewar to most of them already, but nevertheless two comments:

Kevin Fenzi schrieb:
> One other thing to take into account is the history of the person doing
> the review. If I saw a review done by say mschwent or tibbs that just
> said 'APPROVED', I would suspect they looked over the package fully.

Fully agreed. I'm therefor still for what I wrote in the meeting summary
 and what I proposed during the meeting with a slight modification:

The reviewer at least has to mention that he checked the license and if
the sources match upstream when approving a package. He further *should*
mention what he checked during review, especially if he his not a long
term contributor yet.

> [...]

> If we had a big pool of reviewers

...then we should do re-reviews of the packages that are in the repo. I
think you'll find a lot of old cruft in our existing packages that is
unneeded  (there are probably still packages that probably require
"python-abi" manually) or wrong now and nobody noticed it.

CU
thl