On 4/17/06, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Would you really want to? Me? probably not... but I'm trying to make sure the context of the additional guidelines is put in the proper perspective for the vocal opponents and those reading along. I personally have no problem with special interest groups applying additional "shoulds" which are well reasoned when choosing to spend their volunteer time to do reviews as long as there is a clear good faith effort to work with the package submitter to quickly work through the additional suggestions. But the problem will come if the submitter doesn't agree with the additional requirements above and beyond the established general extras guidelines. I don't want reviews lingering in the FE-REVIEW state if non essential sig-only suggestions are the only outstanding issues which can't be agreed on. It should be made clear that in that case the game SIG members should put the review request back into the FE-NEW state so a non-sig member can then take the review assignment as time allows. I don't think this is likely, but in those oh-so-special cases when a submitter has a bee in the bonnet of a particular game sig "suggestions" I'd rather the game SIG members bow out of the review process quickly instead of waging a pitched battle in the review bugzilla. > But hey, if you don't agree with the reviewer, I suppose you can > always ask for another one. I'm sure you'll get one eventually. I garuntee you that at some point there will be honest disagreement between a submitter who finds the additional game specific "suggestions" burdensome, and I just want everyone to be clear as to the non-binding nature of the additional well-reasoned suggestions the game sig has. -jef -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
