Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Jesse Keating]

On Sunday 31 December 2006 07:11, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> I don't see how this is relevant. I don't see how a checklist of MUST
> items *couldn't* keep an honest person from missing a MUST item.

I don't think arguing that having a condensed one line per rule checklist that 
could be consulted during review.  I think this is a fine idea.  What people 
(including me) are objecting to is forcing the reviewer to paste this list 
into the review bug.

> If someone's intent on being actively dishonest, then we have a much
> greater problem than some half-assed package reviews slipping by.

Exactly.  If there is a problem with somebody just saying "APPROVED" and not 
actually doing the review right, that same person will most likely just past 
the checklist and quickly fill it out (or use a pre-filled list) and STILL 
not actually review.  This doesn't do anything to solve the problem it just 
hides it behind more useless noise.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- 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/20061231/d6aae99c/attachment.sig>