> > Looking at Documentation/process/5.Posting.rst:
> > 
> > 	 - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by another developer (often a
> > 	   maintainer of the relevant code) that the patch is appropriate for
> > 	   inclusion into the kernel.
> > 
> > 	 - Reviewed-by: the named developer has reviewed the patch for correctness;
> > 	   see the reviewer's statement in :ref:`Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst <submittingpatches>`
> > 	   for more detail.
> > 
> > I guess the descriptions are already enough to describe those
> > tags.
> 
> I'd suggest changing the text to read:
> 
>  	 - Acked-by: indicates an agreement by the maintainer or
> 	   reviewer of the the relevant code that the patch is
> 	   appropriate for inclusion into the kernel.

This sounds a tad too strict for me, yet I am not into bike-shedding and
will step aside if more people prefer this phrasing...

> That complaint isn't going to change how *I* interpret or decide to
> include Acked-by's, but if we have general agreement on the
> expectations Maintainers should have (and my expectations match
> yours), then perhaps we can adjust the documentation to make it more
> clear.

... because I fully agree to this. It is one of the reasons I started
this thread. Working on a general agreement. Oh, and increase awareness
that Acks and Revs can be rejected, of course.