On 1/8/19 4:31 PM, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 07:55:47AM -0200, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote: >> Em janeiro 8, 2019 0:23 Santiago Torres via aur-general escreveu: >>> - Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs >>> - Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate >> >> I'm fine with the patch, but these two lines are ambiguous. Are the TUs that >> are >> going to review the PKGBUILD's the same as the sponsors? > > This is a good point. My understanding is that sponsors generally do a > preliminary review, yet everyone is encouraged to continue reviewing any > PKGBUILDS during the discussion period. > >> Also, if we are heading >> this direction of having a different set, other than the sponsors, of TUs >> requiring >> to review the PKGBUILD's, shouldn't this also be added to the bylaws? > > This is also true. I'm not sure if that's something we want to put in > the bylaws or it's just somewhat of an untold rule/expectation. > > What're everyone's thoughts on this? > > Thanks, > -Santiago. >
I don't think the bylaws should *explicitly* state or require two additional, non-sponsoring TU's to conduct reviews. I can think of a number of downsides with making that a requirement with possibly one upside. However, I do think it should be a well-known and documented (i.e. in the wiki) best-practice that during the review process, there's two or more non-sponsoring TU's reviewing the applicant's packages. Informal, but effective. Regards, Andrew
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature