From:  Boris Zbarsky <bzbarsky@mit.edu>
Date:  14 Mar 2017 03:30:43 Hong Kong Time
Newsgroup:  news.mozilla.org/mozilla.dev.planning
Subject:  

Re: The future of commit access policy for core Firefox

NNTP-Posting-Host:  108.7.77.198

On 3/13/17 1:33 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Actually, I wish I had written this differently. Say I get an r+ w/o nits,
> I suspect
> that the sheriffs will accept an updated patch (e.g., ostensibly with a
> comment fix) that is marked r=.

This seems entirely too plausible.  :(

> Me too. And I think "trust" in this case at least arguably should be
> defined as
> "trusted by Mozilla" (e.g., L3 committer). So, one possibility would be
> have a
> policy like the following.

This seems reasonable, if that's the goal.  But this is not the goal 
mconnor had in his original post.  I'd love to get to the point where we 
agree on the goals.

> - Every CL must either be written by someone trusted OR r+ed by someone
> trusted.
> - If a patch is r+ with nits, then the final patch must be posted by someone
> trusted.

This doesn't quite address your "r+ without nits, then the patch author 
updates it anyway" scenario; presumably we would need something to 
address that too.

-Boris