On Sunday 21 November 2010 11:47:18 Robin Burchell wrote:
> 1. Steering committee
> ----------------------
>
> - Elected body consisting of those who are trusted to have good
> judgement and represent the best wishes of the community
> - Responsible for ensuring the work inside the project represents the
> set visions ("Qt Everywhere", "Best application toolkit for
> application development")
> - Handle decisions like "yes, we should have a module that does a
> declarative UI language with JS binding of properties"
> - Stay out of day to day work flow as much as possible, leaving that to
> the individual maintainers (see below), only stepping in in case of
> indecision work flow stays with the maintainers (see below)
This section seems useless. Managers in Free Software projects just don't
work. I know that people tend to like this structure because everyone looking
at it thinks to themselves "Ah, steering committee, surely that's me. I'm such
a visionary!", but it can't physically work. Does anyone really think that
e.g. QtDeclerative wouldn't become part of Qt because 2 out of 3 people in
steering committee didn't like it? (and given the initial reception to it from
the communitty at large, that's a likely scenario)
People doing the work make decisions and maintainers decide what goes in and
what doesn't. Removing this structure simplifies everything - no arbitrary
group, no elections, no semi-secret decision, no worrying about bias... Adding
complexity without problems to solve seems excessive :)
Like with every problem the more it's discussed the more complex it will seem.
Just open the internal mailing list, have the roadmap discussions in public
and lets be done with this already.
z
_______________________________________________
Opengov mailing list
Opengov@qt-labs.org
http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov
