Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-09 Thread Edward Welbourne 
On quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2017 10:52:10 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
>> ... which may well have been the intent, but the thing about Rules,
>> Policies, Laws and Constitutions is that they have to actually *say*
>> what they mean

Thiago Macieira (8 February 2017 21:37)
> That's the difference between the Roman Civil Code / BGB-style laws
> and the Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence laws work. On one, you have to
> specifically say what you mean, otherwise it's outside the law; on the
> latter, the intent of the lawmarker is valid. :-)

Only for as long as the lawmaker is available to consult, as to intent,
and is a single person - if there's more than one, sooner or later,
their differences of intent shall surface.  Even then, if the intent of
the lawmaker doesn't match the explicit wording of the law, a suspicion
is apt to arise of partiality (i.e. the opposite of impartiality)
whenever an appeal to the lawmaker's intent arises.  It is better, thus,
to refine the wording of the law, each time that intent is consulted, so
that it more faithfully reflects the intent.  Which we have just done.

Furthermore, having the intent plainly stated in the law makes it easier
for those who must follow it to be confident of which actions they may
take within it and which would violate it.  This is far better than
leaving them to be surprised when they discover what they have done
violates (the unstated intent of) a law they thought they had followed.

Eddy.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-08 Thread Thiago Macieira 
On quarta-feira, 8 de fevereiro de 2017 10:52:10 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
> ... which may well have been the intent, but the thing about Rules,
> Policies, Laws and Constitutions is that they have to actually *say*
> what they mean

That's the difference between the Roman Civil Code / BGB-style laws and the 
Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence laws work. On one, you have to specifically say what 
you mean, otherwise it's outside the law; on the latter, the intent of the 
lawmarker is valid. :-)

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-08 Thread Edward Welbourne 
Am 07.02.2017 um 13:03 schrieb Edward Welbourne:
[snip]
>> Here's my change to the Wiki page:
>> https://wiki.qt.io/index.php?title=The_Qt_Governance_Model=29866=29555
>>
>> I doubt I'll get round to QUIPping it any time soon - any volunteers ?

Robert Löhning (8 February 2017 14:20) replied:
> isn't
> https://codereview.qt-project.org/176903
> what you're looking for?

Indeed it is - and with all the recent flood of reviews, I'd quite
forgotten all about it - thanks for the reminder ;-)

Which seems like a good moment to encourage all on this list to take a
look at QUIP 2 and exercise your Lazy Consensus powers ... by saying
nothing if you're happy with it and suggesting improvements otherwise,

Eddy.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-08 Thread Robert Löhning 
Am 07.02.2017 um 13:03 schrieb Edward Welbourne:
> Lars Knoll (7 February 2017 12:45) wrote:
>> The way we have been drawing our governance model as a pyramid had
>> always implied this for me. But I can see that it’s not explicitly
>> mentioned in the wiki page.
> 
> Indeed, the "Becoming a Maintainer" section did in fact only permit us
> to nominate existing Approvers as Maintainers; which we have violated
> repeatedly.
> 
>> Let's add a sentence to the wiki page for the maintainers section. And
>> yes, it would be good to turn the governance model into a QUIP :)
> 
> Here's my change to the Wiki page:
> https://wiki.qt.io/index.php?title=The_Qt_Governance_Model=29866=29555
> 
> I doubt I'll get round to QUIPping it any time soon - any volunteers ?
> 
>   Eddy.

Hi Eddy,

isn't
https://codereview.qt-project.org/176903
what you're looking for?

Cheers,
Robert
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-08 Thread Olivier Goffart 
On Mittwoch, 8. Februar 2017 10:52:10 CET Edward Welbourne wrote:
> ... which may well have been the intent, but the thing about Rules,
> Policies, Laws and Constitutions is that they have to actually *say*
> what they mean, 

And you can say the same about the code in any programming language.

> else the wilful interpretations (usually with ulterior
> motives) get to make a mess (as The Real World never tires of
> demonstrating, usually in courts). 

... or the wilful interpretation by the compiler get to make a mess.
(Don't trigger undefined behavior.)

:-)


___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-08 Thread Edward Welbourne 
On terça-feira, 7 de fevereiro de 2017 12:03:47 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
>> Indeed, the "Becoming a Maintainer" section did in fact only permit
>> us to nominate existing Approvers as Maintainers; which we have
>> violated repeatedly.

Thiago Macieira (7 February 2017 16:54)
> I read that as nominating for maintainership and approvership at the
> same time.

... which may well have been the intent, but the thing about Rules,
Policies, Laws and Constitutions is that they have to actually *say*
what they mean, else the wilful interpretations (usually with ulterior
motives) get to make a mess (as The Real World never tires of
demonstrating, usually in courts).  Hence my fix to the page and the
check that none here disagree (I guess any who *do* have about a
fortnight to raise their objections, according to our Lazy Consensus
model),

Eddy.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-07 Thread Thiago Macieira 
On terça-feira, 7 de fevereiro de 2017 12:03:47 PST Edward Welbourne wrote:
> Lars Knoll (7 February 2017 12:45) wrote:
> > The way we have been drawing our governance model as a pyramid had
> > always implied this for me. But I can see that it’s not explicitly
> > mentioned in the wiki page.
> 
> Indeed, the "Becoming a Maintainer" section did in fact only permit us
> to nominate existing Approvers as Maintainers; which we have violated
> repeatedly.

I read that as nominating for maintainership and approvership at the same 
time.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-07 Thread Lars Knoll 

> On 07 Feb 2017, at 13:03, Edward Welbourne  wrote:
> 
> Lars Knoll (7 February 2017 12:45) wrote:
>> The way we have been drawing our governance model as a pyramid had
>> always implied this for me. But I can see that it’s not explicitly
>> mentioned in the wiki page.
> 
> Indeed, the "Becoming a Maintainer" section did in fact only permit us
> to nominate existing Approvers as Maintainers; which we have violated
> repeatedly.
> 
>> Let's add a sentence to the wiki page for the maintainers section. And
>> yes, it would be good to turn the governance model into a QUIP :)
> 
> Here's my change to the Wiki page:
> https://wiki.qt.io/index.php?title=The_Qt_Governance_Model=29866=29555

Thanks Eddy! Looks good to me :)

Lars

> 
> I doubt I'll get round to QUIPping it any time soon - any volunteers ?
> 
>   Eddy.

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-07 Thread Edward Welbourne 
Lars Knoll (7 February 2017 12:45) wrote:
> The way we have been drawing our governance model as a pyramid had
> always implied this for me. But I can see that it’s not explicitly
> mentioned in the wiki page.

Indeed, the "Becoming a Maintainer" section did in fact only permit us
to nominate existing Approvers as Maintainers; which we have violated
repeatedly.

> Let's add a sentence to the wiki page for the maintainers section. And
> yes, it would be good to turn the governance model into a QUIP :)

Here's my change to the Wiki page:
https://wiki.qt.io/index.php?title=The_Qt_Governance_Model=29866=29555

I doubt I'll get round to QUIPping it any time soon - any volunteers ?

Eddy.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-07 Thread Lars Knoll 

> On 07 Feb 2017, at 11:29, Edward Welbourne  wrote:
> 
> Sergio Martins (6 February 2017 17:11) quoted
>> https://wiki.qt.io/The_Qt_Governance_Model kind of implies you can't
>> be a maintainer if you're not an approver.
>> "How to become a Maintainer: An Approver who (...), may be nomiated
>> (...)"
> 
> However, the next paragraph adds "A Maintainer may also nominate a new
> Maintainer to take ownership of a subset of his / her component" without
> any mention of the new Maintainer being an Approver.
> 
> Subsequent discussion appears to have concluded (quoting Thiago):
> 
>  Becoming maintainer of anything in a main module implies becoming
>  Approver everywhere, if one is not so yet.
> 
> Should I update that wiki page ?
> Should we, in fact, turn it into a QUIP ?

The way we have been drawing our governance model as a pyramid had always 
implied this for me. But I can see that it’s not explicitly mentioned in the 
wiki page. Let's add a sentence to the wiki page for the maintainers section. 
And yes, it would be good to turn the governance model into a QUIP :)

Cheers,
Lars

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-07 Thread Edward Welbourne 
Sergio Martins (6 February 2017 17:11) quoted
> https://wiki.qt.io/The_Qt_Governance_Model kind of implies you can't
> be a maintainer if you're not an approver.
> "How to become a Maintainer: An Approver who (...), may be nomiated
> (...)"

However, the next paragraph adds "A Maintainer may also nominate a new
Maintainer to take ownership of a subset of his / her component" without
any mention of the new Maintainer being an Approver.

Subsequent discussion appears to have concluded (quoting Thiago):

  Becoming maintainer of anything in a main module implies becoming
  Approver everywhere, if one is not so yet.

Should I update that wiki page ?
Should we, in fact, turn it into a QUIP ?

Eddy.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-07 Thread Lars Knoll 

On 06 Feb 2017, at 19:27, Thiago Macieira 
> wrote:

On segunda-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2017 18:39:19 PST Oswald Buddenhagen
wrote:
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 02:54:53PM +, Alexander Blasche wrote:
There were no objections and maintainer of a module implies approver, so
could somebody do the honours and grant Mike the rights please? The
necessary period has long since passed.

I am sorry but being the maintainer does not imply approver rights. At
most it implies approver rights for the component he is maintainer for. I
agree that when you maintain a cross module component that this is
somewhat harder to manage.
selective approver rights are not implementable for a horizontal
responsibility, so this is kind of moot.

In any case I am sure that waiting for the required time does not make
much of a difference. Then this discussion is over anyway.
the previous thread already used the word approver without futher
qualification
(http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2016-August/026909.html)
and nobody objected, so i just gave mike the rights.

Let's not quabble over this.

Becoming maintainer of anything in a main module implies becoming Approver
everywhere, if one is not so yet.

Restricted maintainership rights should be used only for playground things.

+1. Being maintainer of something that is part of Qt does of course imply 
approver rights.

Cheers,
Lars

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-07 Thread Tuukka Turunen 


> -Original Message-
> From: Development [mailto:development-
> bounces+tuukka.turunen=qt...@qt-project.org] On Behalf Of Thiago
> Macieira
> Sent: maanantaina 6. helmikuuta 2017 20.27
> To: development@qt-project.org
> Subject: Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver
> 
> On segunda-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2017 18:39:19 PST Oswald Buddenhagen
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 02:54:53PM +, Alexander Blasche wrote:
> > > >There were no objections and maintainer of a module implies
> > > >approver, so could somebody do the honours and grant Mike the
> > > >rights please? The necessary period has long since passed.
> > >
> > > I am sorry but being the maintainer does not imply approver rights.
> > > At most it implies approver rights for the component he is
> > > maintainer for. I agree that when you maintain a cross module
> > > component that this is somewhat harder to manage.
> > selective approver rights are not implementable for a horizontal
> > responsibility, so this is kind of moot.
> >
> > > In any case I am sure that waiting for the required time does not
> > > make much of a difference. Then this discussion is over anyway.
> > the previous thread already used the word approver without futher
> > qualification
> > (http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2016-August/026909.
> > html) and nobody objected, so i just gave mike the rights.
> 
> Let's not quabble over this.
> 
> Becoming maintainer of anything in a main module implies becoming
> Approver everywhere, if one is not so yet.
> 

+1

(to me this has mostly already been the case, but as it seems to be unclear it 
is good to document it clearly)

> Restricted maintainership rights should be used only for playground things.
> 

+1

(barrier to have playground repo should be low, thus these could be maintained 
by persons who are not approvers yet)

Yours,

Tuukka

> --
> Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
>   Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
> 
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-06 Thread Thiago Macieira 
On segunda-feira, 6 de fevereiro de 2017 18:39:19 PST Oswald Buddenhagen 
wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 02:54:53PM +, Alexander Blasche wrote:
> > >There were no objections and maintainer of a module implies approver, so
> > >could somebody do the honours and grant Mike the rights please? The
> > >necessary period has long since passed.
> > 
> > I am sorry but being the maintainer does not imply approver rights. At
> > most it implies approver rights for the component he is maintainer for. I
> > agree that when you maintain a cross module component that this is
> > somewhat harder to manage.
> selective approver rights are not implementable for a horizontal
> responsibility, so this is kind of moot.
> 
> > In any case I am sure that waiting for the required time does not make
> > much of a difference. Then this discussion is over anyway.
> the previous thread already used the word approver without futher
> qualification
> (http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2016-August/026909.html)
> and nobody objected, so i just gave mike the rights.

Let's not quabble over this.

Becoming maintainer of anything in a main module implies becoming Approver 
everywhere, if one is not so yet.

Restricted maintainership rights should be used only for playground things.

-- 
Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com
  Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-06 Thread Oswald Buddenhagen 
On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 02:54:53PM +, Alexander Blasche wrote:
> >There were no objections and maintainer of a module implies approver, so 
> >could
> >somebody do the honours and grant Mike the rights please? The necessary 
> >period
> >has long since passed.
> 
> I am sorry but being the maintainer does not imply approver rights. At most 
> it implies approver rights for the component he is maintainer for. I agree 
> that when you maintain a cross module component that this is somewhat harder 
> to manage. 
> 
selective approver rights are not implementable for a horizontal
responsibility, so this is kind of moot.

> In any case I am sure that waiting for the required time does not make much 
> of a difference. Then this discussion is over anyway.
> 
the previous thread already used the word approver without futher
qualification
(http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2016-August/026909.html)
and nobody objected, so i just gave mike the rights.
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-06 Thread Jake Petroules 
+1 for Mike Krus as Approver.

> On Feb 6, 2017, at 8:11 AM, Sergio Martins  wrote:
> 
> On 2017-02-06 14:54, Alex Blasche wrote:
>>> There were no objections and maintainer of a module implies approver, so 
>>> could
>>> somebody do the honours and grant Mike the rights please? The necessary 
>>> period
>>> has long since passed.
>> I am sorry but being the maintainer does not imply approver rights.
> 
> https://wiki.qt.io/The_Qt_Governance_Model kind of implies you can't be a 
> maintainer if you're not an approver.
> "How to become a Maintainer: An Approver who (...), may be nomiated (...)"
> 
> What failed here is that he wasn't nominated for approver, so we need to wait 
> in any case :)
> 
> +1 for approver, from me.
> 
> 
> Btw, the "maintainers" group in gerrit 
> (https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/admin/groups/13,members) seems out of 
> date, it's missing Sean, Bogdan, Giulio, Milian and possibly more.
> 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> -- 
> Sérgio Martins | sergio.mart...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
> Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB, a KDAB Group company
> Tel: Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090, USA +1-866-777-KDAB(5322)
> KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Jake Petroules - jake.petrou...@qt.io
The Qt Company - Silicon Valley
Qbs build tool evangelist - qbs.io

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-06 Thread Sergio Martins 

On 2017-02-06 14:54, Alex Blasche wrote:
There were no objections and maintainer of a module implies approver, 
so could
somebody do the honours and grant Mike the rights please? The 
necessary period

has long since passed.


I am sorry but being the maintainer does not imply approver rights.


https://wiki.qt.io/The_Qt_Governance_Model kind of implies you can't be 
a maintainer if you're not an approver.
"How to become a Maintainer: An Approver who (...), may be nomiated 
(...)"


What failed here is that he wasn't nominated for approver, so we need to 
wait in any case :)


+1 for approver, from me.


Btw, the "maintainers" group in gerrit 
(https://codereview.qt-project.org/#/admin/groups/13,members) seems out 
of date, it's missing Sean, Bogdan, Giulio, Milian and possibly more.




Regards,
--
Sérgio Martins | sergio.mart...@kdab.com | Senior Software Engineer
Klarälvdalens Datakonsult AB, a KDAB Group company
Tel: Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090, USA +1-866-777-KDAB(5322)
KDAB - The Qt, C++ and OpenGL Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-06 Thread Sean Harmer 
On Monday 06 February 2017 14:54:53 Alex Blasche wrote:
> >There were no objections and maintainer of a module implies approver, so
> >could somebody do the honours and grant Mike the rights please? The
> >necessary period has long since passed.
> 
> I am sorry but being the maintainer does not imply approver rights. At most
> it implies approver rights for the component he is maintainer for. I agree
> that when you maintain a cross module component that this is somewhat
> harder to manage.
> 
> In any case I am sure that waiting for the required time does not make much
> of a difference. Then this discussion is over anyway.

My misunderstanding then. No problem to wait now of course.

Cheers,

Sean

> 
> --
> Alex
> ___
> Development mailing list
> Development@qt-project.org
> http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

-- 
Dr Sean Harmer | sean.har...@kdab.com | Managing Director UK
KDAB (UK) Ltd, a KDAB Group company
Tel. +44 (0)1625 809908; Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
Mobile: +44 (0)7545 140604
KDAB - Qt Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-06 Thread Milian Wolff 
On Monday, February 6, 2017 1:29:18 PM CET Bogdan Vatra wrote:
> On luni, 6 februarie 2017 12:26:03 EET Sean Harmer wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I'd like to nominate Mike Krus as an approver. Mike contributed support
> > for
> > Qt on tvOS along with the refactoring that went in as part of this. Mike
> > has done a lot of work within Qt 3D too.
> > 
> > Disclaimer: Mike is a colleague at KDAB.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Sean
> 
> +1
> 
> BogDan.
> 
> Same disclaimer.

^- +1 to both of the above

-- 
Milian Wolff | milian.wo...@kdab.com | Software Engineer
KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH KG, a KDAB Group company
Tel: +49-30-521325470
KDAB - The Qt Experts

smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-06 Thread Alex Blasche 

>There were no objections and maintainer of a module implies approver, so could
>somebody do the honours and grant Mike the rights please? The necessary period
>has long since passed.

I am sorry but being the maintainer does not imply approver rights. At most it 
implies approver rights for the component he is maintainer for. I agree that 
when you maintain a cross module component that this is somewhat harder to 
manage. 

In any case I am sure that waiting for the required time does not make much of 
a difference. Then this discussion is over anyway.

--
Alex
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-06 Thread Sean Harmer 
Hi,

in fact, I've just been reminded we already proposed and voted for Mike as 
maintainer of the tvOS system last year:

http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/2016-August/026903.html

There were no objections and maintainer of a module implies approver, so could 
somebody do the honours and grant Mike the rights please? The necessary period 
has long since passed.

Thanks,

Sean

On Monday 06 February 2017 12:26:03 Sean Harmer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to nominate Mike Krus as an approver. Mike contributed support for
> Qt on tvOS along with the refactoring that went in as part of this. Mike
> has done a lot of work within Qt 3D too.
> 
> Disclaimer: Mike is a colleague at KDAB.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Sean

-- 
Dr Sean Harmer | sean.har...@kdab.com | Managing Director UK
KDAB (UK) Ltd, a KDAB Group company
Tel. +44 (0)1625 809908; Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
Mobile: +44 (0)7545 140604
KDAB - Qt Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

Re: [Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-06 Thread Bogdan Vatra 
On luni, 6 februarie 2017 12:26:03 EET Sean Harmer wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'd like to nominate Mike Krus as an approver. Mike contributed support for
> Qt on tvOS along with the refactoring that went in as part of this. Mike
> has done a lot of work within Qt 3D too.
> 
> Disclaimer: Mike is a colleague at KDAB.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Sean

+1

BogDan.

Same disclaimer.

___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development

[Development] Nominate Mike Krus as approver

2017-02-06 Thread Sean Harmer 
Hi,

I'd like to nominate Mike Krus as an approver. Mike contributed support for Qt 
on tvOS along with the refactoring that went in as part of this. Mike has done 
a lot of work within Qt 3D too.

Disclaimer: Mike is a colleague at KDAB.

Cheers,

Sean
-- 
Dr Sean Harmer | sean.har...@kdab.com | Managing Director UK
KDAB (UK) Ltd, a KDAB Group company
Tel. +44 (0)1625 809908; Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090
Mobile: +44 (0)7545 140604
KDAB - Qt Experts
___
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development