On 05/11/13 21:58, "André Pönitz" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 08:49:45PM -0800, Alan Alpert wrote: >> >> > As some of you may know, Shane has a new job and therefore has a >>lot >> >> > less time to spend on QtNetwork. He, Peter and I have discussed how >> >> > we should maintain the module in the future. What we're proposing >>is >> >> > that Peter and I take over as joint maintainers since neither of us >> >> > has the time to keep on top of things alone. Anyone looking to help >> >> > out in this area should feel free to drop us a mail. >> >> >> >> This isn't a veto or anything, but having two 'equal' maintainers for >> >> the same area sounds odd to me. I mean, it's perfectly fine that you >> >> split up the workload, but the point of having a nominal maintainer >>is >> >> to have _one_ person to go to, and _one_ person who can decide if >> >> there's need ... It doesn't mean that the maintainer can't delegate >> >> his work though, up to the point that whomever he trusts can act as a >> >> de-facto decision maker, too. >> > >> > Well, I am pretty much in the other camp. I see no problem here, >> > neither of the setup in general (better bus factor, less chance of >> > overload, something that rather should be encouraged...) nor with Rich >> > and Peter in particular. >> >> You're missing the point of having a hierarchy, deliberately assign >>clear >> bottlenecks for responsibility (and they shouldn't be used that often). > >You are focusing on a secondary aspect while masking out the primary >issue. > >The goal of the project is to create a usable product. > >Having a hierarchy might or might not be beneficial in achieving that >goal. >So far the assumption was that having it bears quite some value, as it >helps to establish and to keep order. However, the hierarchy is not the >primary goal. > >If two people, both with quite impressive track records in the project, >ask >to share the responsibilities of one position, the question is not whether >it fits into the hierarchy, but whether it is beneficial for the project. I couldn¹t agree more. Cheers, Lars > >Answering that question might involve considerations of practicability, >and >more, but theoretical considerations about the primacy of artifically >introduced bottlenecks are unlikely to help. > >Andre' > > >PS: > >> Back from the general to the specific, I'm definitely happy with >> Richard and Peter stepping up if Shane no longer has time. It's better >> to have too many good maintainers for a module than too few. >> >> Since I think it'll be a long time until we hit a situation where the >> designated tie breaker rule will be needed, I'd suggest we vote them >> both in first and then tackle the general question of "shared >> maintainerships" separately. > >I even agree. >_______________________________________________ >Development mailing list >[email protected] >http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
