I would often have discussions with Peter and Rich over IRC about complex QtNetwork issues and I am confident in their ability to work together on this. If for organisational reasons it is preferred to have single maintainers, I'd suggest Rich for the socket/SSL/security parts and Peter for QNetworkAccessManager with one of them as the overall module maintainer. (in the same way that the gui module was subdivided between several maintainers)
On 5 November 2013 20:58, 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. > > 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
