> > I think Erik and you should be permitted to set the PUBLISH keyword with > one review, so you could be more productive and increase your experience > by learning from mistakes, too. There's one single de-motivating thing and > that is if new reviewers seem to wait endlessly for a second review. > There may be some benefit to relaxing the 2-review requirement until critical mass is achieved. I think it's important not to get too caught up in "policy" and "quality" arguments when it's obvious that the rate of approval is so low. Here and now is probably the place for the discussion. > > As an proposal, I think QA'ers should make sure they set the NEEDSWORK > > keyword and remove the QA keyword when they think the package should be > > improved. This would reduce the queue, and make it "cleaner" : > > But don't forget that a big portion of the queue has a very special target > group (e.g. lots of educational programming languages). These packages are > very unlikely to be reviewed by someone who has no interest in them. And > in particular not, if they don't even build flawlessly, because such > package requests result in a lot of work. This is a problem, and will continue to be one. Perhaps we should suggest to packagers that they attempt to round up their own QA crew among people who might actually use the package? We need to streamline the QA process enough that these types of people can get up to speed and provide at least 1 of the reviews. --erik
