Core-Dev Application: Till Kamppeter

[Martin Pitt]

Stephan Hermann [2008-04-02 16:31 +0200]:
> I trust pitti and till in many ways...but if we don't follow our QA  
> rules...we are doomed in the future...and if pitti acked this package  
> because he trusted Till, and without reviewing it properly,  so pitti is  
> getting also a LPS, bad pitti...

As I already pointed out in my other mail, I encouraged them to upload
the packages when they got some positive testing results in the bug
report. Admittedly I did not look at the packages *before* upload,
since I prefer reviewing them in the NEW queue. I have to do that
anyway, since I don't want to assume that a package uploaded to and
reviewed at random URL is the same as the one sitting in NEW.

So, you could call it trying to be more effective (and NEW processing
is a task where reviewing things twice would slow it down even
further), or you can call it laziness to not ask for testers myself.

With my archive admin hat, I can't care about whether a package
actually works, just that it is reasonably policy conformant. I don't
think that I did anything wrong there. Please correct me if I did, and
point it out clearly so that I can improve in the future.

With my mentor hat on I might have insisted at more testing perhaps.
But the packages seemed to work for at least some people, so it didn't
feel like a bad thing to have them uploaded?

Please tell me what went wrong, so that I'm aware of it next time.

Martin

-- 
Martin Pitt                        | http://www.piware.de
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com)  | Debian Developer  (www.debian.org)

My 5 today: #154596 (jockey), #207957 (jockey), #207928 (jockey),
#202802 (jockey, linux-restricted-modules-2.6.24), #204940 (apport)
Do 5 a day - every day! https://wiki.ubuntu.com/5-A-Day