Re: [Development] proposing Richard Moore as approver

2011-11-17 Thread marius.storm-olsen 
On 11/16/11 6:07 PM, ext Sven Anderson sven.ander...@snom.com wrote:
Am 02.11.2011 11:14, schrieb Olivier Goffart:
 But am I alone to think that 3 weeks of waiting time is a lot?
 15 work day is a lot,  how about reducing it to something between 7 and
10
 work days?

OTOH, is this really a time-critical process? In doubt I would choose
the longer option, not the shorter.

The whole point of the time period is to enable key personnel which might
be on vacation, sick or otherwise indisposed, to be able to react. 15
business days is normally enough to catch that, while 7-10 days normally
isn't. (People tend to take 2 week vacations from work, and not so much 3
weeks or more)

It will not affect their ways of working, since those people should even
from before they get a nomination be working *as if* they already had the
role. The only difference is that after the 15 days they will get a +2
instead of the +1. Nothing else really changes. (Yes, they get a Stage
button too, but normally the Author pushes that button)

-- 
.marius

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] proposing Richard Moore as approver

2011-11-16 Thread Sven Anderson 


Am 02.11.2011 11:14, schrieb Olivier Goffart:
 But am I alone to think that 3 weeks of waiting time is a lot?
 15 work day is a lot,  how about reducing it to something between 7 and 10
 work days?

OTOH, is this really a time-critical process? In doubt I would choose 
the longer option, not the shorter.


Sven
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] proposing Richard Moore as approver

2011-11-01 Thread shane.kearns 
I second this nomination, based on the quality of code reviews and technical 
discussion I have seen.

 -Original Message-
 From: development-bounces+shane.kearns=accenture@qt-project.org
 [mailto:development-bounces+shane.kearns=accenture@qt-project.org]
 On Behalf Of Thiago Macieira
 Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2011 16:08
 To: development@qt-project.org
 Subject: Re: [Development] proposing Richard Moore as approver

 On Tuesday, 1 de November de 2011 16:00:30 Peter Hartmann wrote:
  Hello,
 
  hereby I would like to propose Richard Moore as approver for the Qt
 project.
 
  Rich has made numerous high-quality commits to the Qt SSL code and
  knows Qt very well, being a KDE contributor since the very beginning.
 
  Shane Kearns and Martin Petersson second this proposal.

 It would be better if they could post to the mailing list voicing their
 approval, Not that I doubt that you talked to them, but just in case...

 Just to add that I also second his nomination.

  Please raise any concerns you might have about this until 22nd of
  November 2011 (see the guide lines at
  http://wiki.qt-
 project.org/The_Qt_Governance_Model#How_to_become_an_Ap
  prover
  ).

 --
 Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
  Intel Sweden AB - Registration Number: 556189-6027
  Knarrarnäsgatan 15, 164 40 Kista, Stockholm, Sweden


This message is for the designated recipient only and may contain privileged, 
proprietary, or otherwise private information. If you have received it in 
error, please notify the sender immediately and delete the original. Any other 
use of the email by you is prohibited.

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development