[Development] Maintainership of QtNetwork

[Richard Moore]

Hi All,

I think there's a valid question in who gets to be the arbiter should
Peter and I disagree on something, however between Peter, Shane and I
we've been working with pretty much this model anyway - I can't
imagine that any of us would allow something through that one of the
others disagreed with. In a situation like this, then we always have
Lars as a tie breaker with his chief maintainer hat on.

I'd guess that any likely tie in this situation would be more along
the lines of /should/ we support a feature rather than how the feature
is supported. I don't see this being a problem based on the way we've
managed to run stuff for the last couple of years, but if we really
need a designated QtNetwork tie breaker, then really either of us
could be that person. It seems a but academic to me since Peter, Shane
and I have been collaborating on the network stack since opengov
started, so this isn't a new team or any kind of dramatic change.

I don't mind how people want this to be handled. Joint maintainership
or a designated tie breaker is fine with me.

Cheers

Rich.