On Fri, 2012-02-03 at 16:10 +0100, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > On 02/02/2012 05:18 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Adam Williamson wrote: > >> We'll keep it around, but I'll update the wiki pages to note that > >> it's kinda 'dormant' for now. I'm hoping that with Bodhi 2.0 > >> we'll be able to re-design the process and utilize proventesters > >> in a better way. > > > > How about just requiring 1 proventester +1 *or* 2 regular +1s > > instead of the current "any 2" or the previous "1+1" rule? A > > proventester should be trusted, so why require a second +1 if the > > first one was from a proventester? > > > +1 > > That does seem like a reasonable way of weighting proventester input, > for now. It's up to FESCo. I don't think they wanted one-person approvals in general, though, whether proventester or not. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
