rpmfusion review process

[Sérgio Basto]

Hi, 
Sorry for late answer I'm completely overloaded 

On Sáb, 2014-06-14 at 10:49 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> On 06/13/2014 08:48 PM, Sérgio Basto wrote:
> > On Sex, 2014-06-13 at 14:41 +0200, Alec Leamas wrote:
> >> In
> >> particular,  it's hard for me and Nicolas to find an agreement since
> >> we
> >> have a different view of our roles.
> > https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3152#c57
> >
> > Nicolas, has arrived late for review, undoubtedly, could we think that
> > review is not approved yet (was approved by Richard) , and Nicolas is
> > the reviewer master ? .
> 
> I suppose we could... but then this should be documented. And then 
> again, who has really the authority to update the process docs?

We got a Steering committee http://rpmfusion.org/SteeringCommittee 

Nicolas Chauvet was announced as master administrator by the previous master , some months ago on this Mailing list but I can't find the email in question. 

> But if there should be some kind of "super-review" or whatever then we 
> need to formalize this so the submitter knows what's going on instead of 
> waiting for a seemingly overloaded cvssync administrator. Which is what 
> I first did, probably for a too long time. Note that this would make the 
> rpmfusion review process more complicated than Fedora's where there is 
> no further review actions once the package is approved, only 
> administrative tasks.
> 
> One alternative would be to say that also on rpmfusion the cvssync task 
> is an administrative task, not a "super-review" or so. To add a safety  
> net  we could just state that anyone unhappy with a package (new or old) 
> could bring this to this list, effectively making the list take same 
> role as FPC/FESCO.  IMHO, this would align the rpmfusion review process 
> better with Fedora's.
> 

we don't have any kind of FPC or FESCO because we don't have people to do that , so Nicolas is the FPC or FESCO . 

> Of course, this only applies when there is a disagreement. Most remarks 
> are normally welcome be it under or after the review.
> 
> > For me thing is , make sense what Nicolas ask ? or you don't agree ? ,
> 
> Well, obviously we have a disagreement... I have tried to explain my 
> position in comment 58, which still is waiting for some kind of feedback.

Unfortunately, I don't had time to read it and I don't have time to moderate it to see if parts can achieve to an agreement.


> > if first, is simple please consider that review is not ended, if second,
> > "should we decide on some mechanism which is similar to FPC/FESCO " is
> > this list,
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> --alec

Cheers! 

-- 
Sérgio M. B.