Those asides are precisely the reason it's "abuse" :) We should update the list, but from a quick skim I think there aren't more than 2-3 names on that list that need removing. Part of the problem might be solved by introducing an "superreviewer emeriti" list.
Gavin On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Bobby Holley <[email protected]> wrote: > (I want to avoid entangling the dom/webidl plan with this discussion, which > is why I forked the thread) > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Ehsan Akhgari <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Following up on this, people asked us to not abuse the superreview flag >> for >> this purpose > > > If this is "abuse", doesn't that demonstrate that the super-review policy is > pretty much irrelevant to the modern world, and should be changed or > removed? > > This rule seems like a textbook use for the sr? flag, aside from the fact > that the reviewers must be DOM peers and not people from [1]. But that list > is pretty out of date - there are several people who haven't touched Gecko > in over 3 years, and our WebAPI tech lead isn't on the list. > > It seems like we should either update the list, or remove it. > > bholley > > [1] http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/reviewers.html > > _______________________________________________ > dev-b2g mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-b2g > _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
