Hi All, I think there's a valid question in who gets to be the arbiter should Peter and I disagree on something, however between Peter, Shane and I we've been working with pretty much this model anyway - I can't imagine that any of us would allow something through that one of the others disagreed with. In a situation like this, then we always have Lars as a tie breaker with his chief maintainer hat on.
I'd guess that any likely tie in this situation would be more along the lines of /should/ we support a feature rather than how the feature is supported. I don't see this being a problem based on the way we've managed to run stuff for the last couple of years, but if we really need a designated QtNetwork tie breaker, then really either of us could be that person. It seems a but academic to me since Peter, Shane and I have been collaborating on the network stack since opengov started, so this isn't a new team or any kind of dramatic change. I don't mind how people want this to be handled. Joint maintainership or a designated tie breaker is fine with me. Cheers Rich. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
