* Andreas Barth [Mon, 06 Aug 2007 09:16:23 +0200]:
> In case the TC decides I'm still the lead maintainer, I would like to
> try to find out if there is a procedure that still satisfies my quality
> requirements, and will allow Raphael to contribute in a way he likes.
> Somehow, I am currently quite annoyed (which is perhaps not best but
> natural), but I'm optimistic we can still work out something which is ok.
> (That's basically not different from any other package or area I'm
> responsible for.)
I'll throw my 2¢ here:
The policy you have in place is there to ensure changes get reviewed
*before* being committed, partly because what gets commited gets
immediately published and hence Raphael's "review after commit via the
PTS diff mail" is not optimal.
Parting from that, why not make the review process collaborative itself,
in a way similar (if I undersand correctly) the Policy maintainers are
implementing?:
* You have a handful of people with "vote" (as opposed to "commit")
rights.
* Patches are sent to a list for review; anybody can submit patches.
* Patches get applied after they receive two positive votes (if the
submitter of the patch is a voter, their vote counts).
* Patches can be applied by a committer after a week with no votes.
The last item is so that the development of the document can progress if
there's no voters active. Which I guess can happen easily, particularly
at the first stages.
But it could be nice to have this happening nevertheless: it encourages
peer review, but without making it a bottleneck, and all commiters have
to go through the same process to get their changes applied.
You'd need to find some more voters, though.
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Enrique Bunbury - El club de los imposibles
