Luke Faraone <lfara...@debian.org> writes: > The rationale given when I joined as ftpassistant (c. 2012) for not > publicising decisions e.g. in the ITP was to avoid publishing > potentially harshly-worded and embarassing reviews to maintainers in > public (like pointing out that you missed a fairly obvious license > declaration, incompatibility, or packaging step). > > I am welcome to feedback from the project as to whether this outweighs > the benefit to having past decisions available for public > consultation.
If that is really the only rationale, I think the reviews ought to be public. As an offender of fairly obvious and embarrasing license mistakes, and other NEW packaging problems, I believe the only sustainable way to improve is to have more eyes looking at things and contributing and doing things in public allows people to learn how the process works, and participate. Charles Plessy's effort to have a pre-NEW review team to do such work seems like a good start (although I never figured out how I would submit a package to that effort). I can see the need for doing private reviews with private feedback though. Maybe what is needed is not so much to change ftp-master's private review process but to have this public pre-review process to smoothen the process a bit. /Simon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
