Em Sexta-feira, 26 de Novembro de 2010, às 20:54:47, Zack Rusin escreveu: > instead of adding unnecessary complexity to resolve problems we don't even > have just have the simplest possible structure to get us started and go > from there. > Or in other words get rid of any elections or steering committees and let > maintainers take care of it for now.
It does add complexity, no doubt. And I'd love to see that we can live without
it.
However, I'm planning for a very possible case where a decision is beyond the
maintainers. Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but I think this is actually likely,
like creation of new modules. Unlike your example, there's a big likelihood
that no one inside the project is experienced at this.
The decision on whether the new module or new feature should be accepted
should derive from the Qt Vision, but who gets to interpret it?
We can have it informal and just have the discussion on the ML. How do we
avoid the "the one to scream loudest wins" syndrome we find sometimes in the
KDE discussions?
--
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
