On 1/8/19 4:31 PM, Santiago Torres-Arias via aur-general wrote:
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 07:55:47AM -0200, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
Em janeiro 8, 2019 0:23 Santiago Torres via aur-general escreveu:
- Have two TUs review the applicants PKBUILDs - Have two TUs actually decide to support this canididate
I'm fine with the patch, but these two lines are ambiguous. Are the TUs that are going to review the PKGBUILD's the same as the sponsors?
This is a good point. My understanding is that sponsors generally do a preliminary review, yet everyone is encouraged to continue reviewing any PKGBUILDS during the discussion period.
Also, if we are heading this direction of having a different set, other than the sponsors, of TUs requiring to review the PKGBUILD's, shouldn't this also be added to the bylaws?
This is also true. I'm not sure if that's something we want to put in the bylaws or it's just somewhat of an untold rule/expectation.
What're everyone's thoughts on this?
Thanks, -Santiago.
I don't think the bylaws should *explicitly* state or require two additional, non-sponsoring TU's to conduct reviews. I can think of a number of downsides with making that a requirement with possibly one upside. However, I do think it should be a well-known and documented (i.e. in the wiki) best-practice that during the review process, there's two or more non-sponsoring TU's reviewing the applicant's packages. Informal, but effective. Regards, Andrew