Dominique Leuenberger napsal(a):

On Tue, 2008-08-26 at 17:44 +0300, Alexey Eremenko wrote:

...

Well, yes, this technique can work.

Actually the review procedure is supposed to work the way you described - the uneven number of reviewers is to solve issues of "last resort".

If you need to overrule a decision of soe veto-holders by a vote I'd be highly concerned. As long as the people with a veto have a valid argument, I think even a 99% voting in favour of a package should not let it in.

Voting, veto... hey, it's not politics! ;-) I hope that voting should be a last resort and ideally should not take place at all when deciding about new packages - a package is either legally ok, packaged correctly and works and should go in, or it doesn't fulfill one of the above and is rejected, there's nothing to vote about. Should a reviewer start to argue that desktop A is superior to desktop B and therefore B-image-viewer should not go in then there's a problem with that reviewer rather than with the package ;-). A higher number of reviews should ensure that problems (legal and technical) are spotted early, it has less to do with democracy. The reviewers might however have different opinions when it comes to post-freeze updates: Updating a package to fix a bug that annoys 20% of users is certainly a good thing, letting the other 80% download a useless update is less good and in such case voting might be a way to come to a decision, maybe voting with involvement of the user community. Hence even or uneven number of reviewers shouldn't matter much (even without the community, someone can abstain from voting). Michal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org