A Dimarts, 31 d'agost de 2010, Thiago Macieira va escriure: > Em Terça-feira 31 Agosto 2010, às 14:42:14, Philippe escreveu: > > A feature request is rarely bad. It's all about priorities, and > > part of "governing" is selecting priorities. It is why I have risen this > > issue. > > > > This being said, proposing a patch is certainly the best way to induce a > > positive result. > > Hi Philippe > > The opening up of the governance model will not change the priorities of > the Nokia team working in Qt. We have our constraints, our requirements > and our objectives which come from a mix of Open Source users, commercial > customers, Nokia teams, as well as our own ideas. > > With Open Governance, we hope to have a larger pool of ideas to prioritise > for our own work. And we hope also to be able to cooperate with other > people in developing those ideas and suggestions. There will also be a > change in how the project's directions are decided, the major decisions: > those will have to be done in the open, with input from all, and decisions > made by those who we trust to make them. > > However, we will continue to set our own priorities for ourselves. You can > continue to influence Nokia's priorities the same way you have been doing > before. But in the end, we decide what we want to work on. > > What will change is how that affects Qt. > > First and foremost, our priorities are not your priorities. They differ. > The same way that they differ from any other person or company. The > opening up of the governance model includes giving you (and others) the > ability to effect changes for themselves. > > That is, if a feature that you really need isn't high on Nokia's list of > priorities, you are allowed to develop it, or have it developed by someone, > and have it added to Qt. It will need to pass a series of technical and > qualitative checks, just like any other feature, developed by anybody (see > another email on this subject). > > Remember that this is a meritocracy. Some people like to call it "doacracy" > "do-cracy", as in he who does work, decides. Personally, I don't like the > name because it's too similar to "duocracy", which means two people have > power. But you get my meaning. > > The second important change is we all have to play by the same rules, with > no special treatment. That means Nokia priorities are no better than > anyone else's -- aside from the fact that Nokia will be contributing 100+ > full-time engineers to the project. > > So, in summary, if a feature is implemented and it's passing the criteria > we set for ourselves, it should go in. It doesn't matter who implemented > it.
Does this mean that QtMultimedia would have never entered Qt 4.6 because its quality was not good as has been shown later? Even if Nokia wanted 100% to have it there? Albert _______________________________________________ Opengov mailing list Opengov@qt-labs.org http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov
