Package Review Stats for the week ending January 18th, 2009

[Toshio Kuratomi]

Christoph Wickert wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 29.01.2009, 08:52 -0800 schrieb Jesse Keating:
>> No, that's one view of it.
>>
>> It's just a proposal, you're welcome to suggest changes or make your own
>> proposal like Robert did.
> 
> In my very first email in this thread I wrote that I fully support
> Robert's proposal. With a single confinement: Robert suggested this to
> be some automatic process that happens in FAS. I would like to do this
> by mail. IMO this is more simple and more in public. I'd like to be able
> to follow the discussion while FAS is anonymous.
> 
+1 to mail vs FAS.  I like the model adopted for packager sponsors here
being applied to provenpackager.

Although that does make me ask -- is there any reason to have separate
discussions for packager-sponsor and provenpackager?  They have
different powers but not necessarily different reasons for trust (I
expect a sponsor to know the Guidelines and packaging well enough to
sponsor people who can also follow the Guidelines.  I expect
provenpackagers to understand the Guidelines and packaging well enough
to make well--thought-out changes to packages that they don't own.

-Toshio

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/attachments/20090129/af5cf14d/attachment.sig>