> that needs to be reverted because it's actively objectiona- > ble. As Ivan pointed out, few of us will ever commit any- > thing if we're not confident it would meet with the approval
While I do agree that we have a strange and unreally awesome community that behaves really well (and I do trust most KDE devs), I was approaching to this from the same angle as Martin. Namely, for the projects that I know the people who are actually the /core/ team, I always wait their input before pushing something. For those that I don't know, I need to check who is in charge, and whether a 'ship it' I got actually has any weight behind it. +2 would show a newcommer that the review is really by someone who (1) looked it in-detail, and (2) by someone who actually knows what he is talking about. (this might sound overly strict, but I guess you know what I meant by this) For me, it is not about trust. But rather about providing additional information to the submitter. That is why I don't think that the requirement for the 'submit' does not need to be limitted to the maintainers/core team. Also, Kevin's idea of +1s that got more weight over time (aka the inactive- core-team mode) seems nice, though I don't think 1 week is the right ammount of time. Cheerio, Ivan -- KDE, ivan.cukic at kde.org, http://ivan.fomentgroup.org/ gpg key id: 850B6F76, keyserver.pgp.com