Hello all Recent discussions have brought this to my mind. As some of you may know, I'm working on the open governance rules for a different project and I'm reusing many of what has been successful for the Qt Project. That includes its hierarchy.
So this is a refresher: The Qt Project is not a democracy: it's a meritocracy. We give people with the proven experience and dedication to the project the right to make some decisions. There's a reason for this. There's a reason why we thought it was important to get the hierarchy in place from Day 1. It was to make sure decisions get made. One problem we saw in earlier projects we studied was how the decisions get made in some controversial cases. We saw that in many cases the decisions would not get done because there was no one in authority to make them. Or, worse, it would be done by the person who was the loudest, as opposed to the most experienced. Hence, the maintainers. Maintainers are given the authority to make decisions. They have the duty to listen to all sides before making decisions, though, ensuring that everyone has had an opportunity to voice their opinions. And in most cases, there will be a consensus. When there isn't, the maintainer is there to break the stalemate. And when the maintainer does that, the decision is made. At that point, everyone should accept it and move on. The discussion is over. Now, there's recourse to even that. If anyone feels that a maintainer is overstepping his/her boundaries or making unjustified decisions (for example, disagreeing with the majority), this person can call on Lars to help. That's why we have a Chief Maintainer in the first place. Hopefully, those won't happen often. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
