motu-release

[Scott Kitterman]

On Saturday 28 June 2008 14:09, Cesare Tirabassi wrote:
> On Saturday 28 June 2008 18:57:05 Scott Kitterman wrote:
> > I think +2 with no objection is enough.  I think that informally we
> > mostly operated this way and it worked well enough.
>
> If there is consensus than we ought to formalise it. It might have been
> clear in your mind, but it was not clear at all to me that this was the
> case and I would have acted differently in many cases would I have known
> it.

Yes.  I agree with this.  I feel it is not appropriate for one motu-release 
member to approve an upload until objections by another have been resolved.  
I also think it's incumbent on anyone who objects to make it clear when they 
remove that rejections.

motu-release (motu-uvf) has operated very ad hoc in the past and I think that 
having a clear set of rules is something we need.

Scott K