On 25.05.2012 12:29, [email protected] wrote: > > Sven Anderson: >> I also don't think fixed numbers in rules are very wise. What about >> offering some moving average stats of various metrics somewhere (maybe >> they already exist?) and just referring to them in the rules as a guide >> line? That's more dynamic and adapts to the different activity levels >> over modules and time. > > Wow. No! > > The idea was not to have an over-engineered system of random rules, and also > not to introduce a _scale_,
That was not my intention. I was rather talking about some stats, that are anyway interesting and maybe even exist already, and just to give a hint that these exist as _one_ possible source among others to build an opinion about a potential approver. >but an extemely low and obviously reasonable cut-off > point as a minimal barrier of entrance, serving as a guideline for the people > doing the nomination, saving the hassle of discussing unreasonable > nominations, > and prevent the embarassement of being declined for the nominee. Ok, this sounds more like a "noise gate", but is there noise? Maybe you should make a clear problem statement for your proposed solution then, because I have the feeling everybody is proposing solutions for his own interpretation what the problem is. ;-) BR, Sven _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
