Thanks a lot.
Which one of you would be the official maintainer? That's a project role
that can't be shared, but the maintainer can then delegate parts of the
project to another maintainer, or the other person can simply be made an
approver.
For description of different roles, see:
http://wiki.qt-project.org/The_Qt_Governance_Model
Cheers,
ma.
On 15.02.2012 12:32, ext Hugo Parente Lima wrote:
On Wednesday 15 February 2012 07:06:37 Marcelo Lira wrote:
I can take Shiboken, and probably the rest of the generator toolchain,
if no one else does, or if we join everything together as Hugo
proposed in his RFC email.
Ok, so I would like to take PySide together with Paulo, since he was the more
active developer on PySide in the last weeks.
On Fri, Feb 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Matti Airas<matti.p.ai...@nokia.com> wrote:
Hi,
Now that the PySide project is soon going to be migrated to Qt Add-on, I
would like to ask for volunteers for different project roles, according
to the Qt governance model [1]. What the project now needs is
maintainers who are responsible for the different components, as well as
some further administrative roles. Also, in addition to the maintainers,
approvers could be nominated as well.
I don't know what INdT's plans are for PySide but since the work would
seem to have stopped, I think it's best if all maintainer roles are open
for discussion. Naturally, I would be thrilled to see any of the
original core dev team members to continue to work, but it's of course
up to them and INdT's plans. :-)
The possible roles I have been having in mind are:
- Maintainer for apiextractor
- Maintainer for generatorrunner
- Maintainer for shiboken
- Maintainer for pyside
- Possibly maintainers for selected modules (QtCore, QtGui, etc)
- Maintainer for Qt Mobility bindings
- Webmaster (responsible for the website)
- Wikimaster (responsible for wiki)
- Bugmaster (bug triage, assignments, etc)
Of course, these are just from the top of my head, so if the split should
be made somehow differently, that's perfectly fine by me.
If you think you'd be willing to take up any (or even multiple) of these
roles, please step forward! :-)
Also, the Python-facing API design in the project has been done using the
PSEP process. However, now that the project is moved to Qt, I propose
that the Qt Project's decision-making process, also explained in [1], is
followed. Basically that means that decisions are made after a proposal
and discussion either by consensus, or by a maintainer decision. This
reduces the formality of the process quite a bit, but the hindsight is
that no structured design documents are produced, as in PSEP.
[1] http://wiki.qt-project.org/The_Qt_Governance_Model
Cheers,
ma.
_______________________________________________
PySide mailing list
PySide@lists.pyside.org
http://lists.pyside.org/listinfo/pyside
_______________________________________________
PySide mailing list
PySide@lists.pyside.org
http://lists.pyside.org/listinfo/pyside
_______________________________________________
PySide mailing list
PySide@lists.pyside.org
http://lists.pyside.org/listinfo/pyside
