Hi Robin, > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ext > Robin Burchell > > Agree with a Qt maintainer that s/he will approve your new playground > > project > > Can we agree that this approval should be done on development@? That > way, the discussion around the suggestion is visible and (if needed) someone > could raise concerns, point out areas of interest like past research, etc. I > don't > think that would end up too verbose, after alll, this shouldn't happen too > often. > > > Having these on a list also mirrors the structure for approval nomination. >
I think it'd be important to keep the barrier very low. It should be possible to start competing or crazy projects. So this approval from a Maintainer shouldn't usually require a lot of discussion, and it shouldn't be necessary for someone to object to creating playground projects. But I agree it'd be good to have an opportunity to see the initial discussion. How do others see this? > > Send your request for a new Playground project (including project name > and description) to the Qt maintainer from whom you have pre-approval. > > CC to sergio.ahumada at nokia.com and Gerrit Expert Group (email address > TBD). > > I think I'd prefer to see this on an infra@ type list, again, so people can > keep > informed (if they want), and there's no need to change CCs and get outdated > information over time. There's also then an archive of this stuff happening, > which is usually a good thing. The Gerrit Expert Group mailing list was intended to work as an archive. It doesn't exist yet. Sergio, I guess you'll be on that list anyway, so we could simplify this to just sending the emal to the list and to the approving maintainer? Cheers, Henry _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
