Summary from yesterdays (mini) FESCo meeting

[Callum Lerwick]

On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 11:39 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Saturday 30 December 2006 10:52, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > So for checking whether your single-worded "APPROVED" is correct or
> > not the whole work needs to be repeated instead of checking that you
> > reviewed the mandatory items. Sorry, but that's nowhere near quality
> > control.
> 
> Just looking to see if the checklist was pasted isn't quality control either.  
> The only way to _actually_ check that things were reviewed is to do the 
> review yourself.  A spot check.  Anything less is trusting the reviewer did 
> the right thing, and if you're already doing that, what does it matter if 
> they just listed APPROVED or if they copy/pasted a long list of check items?

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.

If someone's intent on being actively dishonest, then we have a much
greater problem than some half-assed package reviews slipping by.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20061231/98ce3e76/attachment.sig>