On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Chris Cormack <chris@bigballofwax.co.nz> wrote:

Not being part of the QA team, but speaking as Release Maintainer, I
think this is a great idea. First up people who are from the same
organisation could comment on the patch, I shouldn't QA this, can
someone else. If no one does step up, or everyone says no I can't. I
think as a last resort we could allow it. But only as a last resort.

+1 for keeping conflicts of interest at a minimum.

However, I would also agree with the "If no one does step up..." clause. Too much work stands to be lost if no one will pick up the QA on a patch, and we need to have some sort of mechanism to keep that from happening. (Not to mention that some work is a real chore to keep rebased against the current master.)

On a second thought, perhaps we should entertain some sort of time/date sequential procedure whereby the QA team would QA in order of severity sub-sorted by date of general sign-off or some such in order to ensure that no signed-off patch is left out.

Perhaps if no member of the QA team feels "qualified" to QA a given patch, the QAM could "deputize" another disinterested community member to do the work.

Just thinking out loud here.

Kind Regards,
Chris