| 1 |
On Mon, 2020-02-24 at 11:47 +0300, Mikle Kolyada wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 24.02.2020 11:39, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Mon, 2020-02-24 at 11:36 +0300, Mikle Kolyada wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > As a result we have more busywork, this all can be conveyed to Council |
| 5 |
> > > directly. Also this is unclear to me how a review body will decide what |
| 6 |
> > > to appeal and what hot to, as the data is still being kept private and |
| 7 |
> > > reviewers are going to only have a decision on hands. Having only |
| 8 |
> > > decision is not enough to start thinking ComRel did anything wrong |
| 9 |
> > > (well, unless there were direct rules violation, which, to my knowledge |
| 10 |
> > > has never been the case). |
| 11 |
> > The whole point is that the review body has direct access to all |
| 12 |
> > the data (i.e. bugzilla privs, comrel@ alias, IRC channels). Unlike |
| 13 |
> > your 'individual' it is considered trusted and therefore you don't have |
| 14 |
> > to 'prepare' data for it. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> Then as a result you are going to have yet another semi-closed process |
| 17 |
> which does not make the entire procedure more transparent (which was the |
| 18 |
> main concern of this thread). |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Obviously. When you can't publish all the data, an 'independent' audit |
| 22 |
is the best you can get. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
-- |
| 26 |
Best regards, |
| 27 |
Michał Górny |
Archives