On Oct 10, 2012, at 4:36 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 22:08 +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote: >> On 10/10/2012 09:45 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >>> I think that way we could make the meetings more efficient without >>> running the risk of missing proposals. >> >> The most time in the meetings is to get people to ack/nack/patch... > > [citation needed] > > it should be easy to check that from logs, but I doubt it's really true, > I expect the average time from propose #agreed to #agreed is pretty > short. Most of the time spend is reading the bug, understanding it, and trying to infer why it's a blocker (that is huge because most bugs don't explicitly make the case); including time spent by reviewers looking over the release criteria for explicit justification for blocking. I agree with the idea that a blocker proposal tool is needed. The tool would be more soliciting of blockers on the one hand by reducing obscurity for proposing them; while also ensuring some minimum amount of justification for the proposal in the first place. Chris Murphy -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
