> > Lowering the bar to one untrusted reviewer would be extremely dangerous. > One aspect of the seemingly tough QA process has been to keep out a > lot of crap software, or crappily packaged software. I would be more > comfortable with people like you who have tried extremely hard, but not > someone brand new to the project and a complete unknown to me. > I agree with you 100%. I think that the process as it stands needs some refinement, and then should be ratified as policy. We also need to create, complete and / or document the tools needed to make the process as easy as possible. At that point, we can go out and heavily recruit QA volunteers. The process is too complicated as of yet to do this, IMO. > NOTE: BELOW IS CURRENTLY ONLY WHAT I PERSONALLY HAVE IN MIND RIGHT NOW. > PLEASE COMMENT. > <MONSTER SNIP> I like your plan. I like it a lot. I like it enough not to have any significant objections to it. I like the 4-tier hierarchy, and especially the exception criteria made for packages languishing in QA for 2 months. The question that remains is WHEN?! I think fedora extra would greatly benefit from the shot in the arm provided by the official redhat integration, and the formalized structure you outlined. You don't explicitly outline what sort of QA requirements would be in place for the different tiers, but I'd like to suggest that 2 anonymous reviews or a single "trusted" review be enough to push out a package, particularly in the case of updates. --erik
