Package review backlog.

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

On 11.10.2008 17:07, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-10-11 at 12:13 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Nice idea, but for me that sounds like a pre-election promise to lower
>> taxes or like big and rich politicians handling out food in a soup 
>> kitchen or a: It will help a few people and gives good press because 
>> it's popular, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem at all. In 
>> fact it's even worse, because time gets wasted instead of solving the 
>> underlying or other problems (that might be bigger or smaller).
> I don't think I'm up for election this time round, and I hope it didn't
> come across that way.

Nope, it did not.

And just to make things clear: I didn't do much reviews(¹) when I was in 
FESCo (and it was round about the same before and after being in FESCo) 
-- I think I invested my time in different areas and it was IMHO 
definitely the right thing to do.

(¹) In fact, by todays standard I wouldn't even considered to become a 
sponsor

> [...] I certainly didn't mean it as some kind of
> measure by which FESCo members' performance would be measured.

But I suppose some people will sooner or later just use those statements 
in the meetings to do that.

> [...]
> By getting FESCo members more involved in reviews, we should help to
> raise the profile of package review and set a good example;

Sure, that is something good. But packaging is just one aspect of the 
whole game and thus I think the rule you proposed distract some of the 
people from other important issues. Especially when people start to look 
at the "# of reviews during the last FESCo term" when the FESCo members 
runs for re-election.

> [...] And it should mean that some of the
> existing proposals for making reviews run smoother would get a little
> bit more attention too, and thus get pushed through to reality.

Maybe. But I tend to think you get to a better results quicker if a few 
people (that don't have to be in FESCo; it just makes things easier if 
at least two people from FESCo are part of the effort) that are familiar 
with reviewing and the guidelines work out improvements for the review 
process.


Cu
knurd