Em Sexta-feira, 26 de Novembro de 2010, às 18:39:21, Zack Rusin escreveu: > 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.
Hi Zack
To tell you the truth, I'm skeptical too. Remember when we tried the Technical
Working Group in KDE, with 7 members elected? It failed miserably because the
goal of the TWG wasn't properly defined, people didn't get it and because the
people we put there turned out to be the busiest people.
Anyway, we added this structure in there to break conflicts. Reading the IRC
log, you may get my train of thought: there are contributors, people who can
approve patches and maintainers. But how does one break conflict and how does
the project make major decisions?
It equates to "Benevolent Dictators" in
http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html
But with a better name and a rotating participation.
Though it's a sore point, I agree with you. If we can do away with it, we
should try. At one point in the IRC session, I said:
00:42 <thiago_home> the board will have to be election
00:43 <thiago_home> either that or simply it is the aggregation of all top-
level maintainers
00:43 <thiago_home> if we have a structure for maintainership, then it could
be reused
[...]
01:00 <thiago_home> and a board of maintainers to override a maintainer or
make bigger decisions ("yes, we should have a module that does a declarative
UI language with JS binding of properties")
This idea I had was to simply take the top-level maintainers or most senior
maintainers or whatever adequate grouping of maintainers and call them "tie-
breakers" let them make major decisions if required.
Would that work? Who knows...
Note this from the maintainer's "job description":
- A maintainer is not elected; they fulfill that role as long as they
like provided they are doing a good job. A maintainer may be replaced
by a better maintainer or augmented by a split in the
responsibilities of their module.
Maintainership is not something you lose, if you're doing your job right.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) nokia.com
Senior Product Manager - Nokia, Qt Development Frameworks
Sandakerveien 116, NO-0402 Oslo, Norway
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Opengov mailing list Opengov@qt-labs.org http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov
