| 1 |
On 21/02/2020 10:38, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Fri, 2020-02-21 at 10:26 +0100, Luca Barbato wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On 21/02/2020 10:19, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> All things considered, maybe creating a separate 'revision' group would |
| 5 |
>>> be better, independently of the reports. Either split ComRel in two, or |
| 6 |
>>> appoint something independent. Let 'core' ComRel do their work, while |
| 7 |
>>> the 'revision' group merely monitor their activities without getting |
| 8 |
>>> directly involved in the process. |
| 9 |
>>> |
| 10 |
>> |
| 11 |
>> That would be a good idea in general, but shall we keep in mind that |
| 12 |
>> comrel activity should be 0 most of the time? |
| 13 |
>> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I don't see that as really relevant here. If it wasn't clear, I meant |
| 16 |
> that the 'revision' group would have access to all bugs and mails. Its |
| 17 |
> main purpose would be to raise the alarm if ComRel doesn't seem to do |
| 18 |
> their work properly. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> That said, I'm not claiming that this will make any real difference |
| 21 |
> in practice. I guess it could end up in having ComRel-A with their own |
| 22 |
> opinion vs. ComRel-B with their own opinion. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
That's another kind of problem. I guess we should try to unpack a bit |
| 26 |
what's comrel about. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
lu |
Archives