Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 05:01:05PM +1200, Nigel Jones wrote: >> I think it'd be a good idea to make a note on the Package Review >> Guidelines/checklist effectively saying: >> >> "Potential reviewers are encouraged to please check that the >> reportee/submitter of a review request is current in the cvsextras package >> group before commencing a review" > > This is not completely true. A sponsor can approve packages from > somebody not in the cvsextras package -- that's how somebody not in this > group become part of it, in general. It should block FE-NEEDSPONSOR, > however. I'm aware of the sponsor process, I wonder if you caught the small bit in brackets "(of course, this wouldn't apply to people that could sponsor someone)". FE-NEEDSPONSOR is a good idea in theory, but it doesn't always work, people make honest mistakes in forgetting to add it other packages they put in for review, or they are not aware they need to do this. Checking against fedoracvs by general maintainers is the only foolproof way. > > And a reviewer may well do a review, even a full review of a package > proposed by a submitter who is not a contributor already. This could > help sponsors. Of course the reviewer should make clear that he isn't a > sponsor and can't approve the package. In which case, the packages are not normally assigned to the person who is providing a pre-review, I'm only suggesting placing a note in the top of the review guidelines reminding people to check that the person that is asking for a review has already been granted fedoracvs before performing a review and granting the fedora-review flag. N.J. -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
