[Development] Maintainership of QtNetwork

[Knoll Lars]

On 05/11/13 21:58, "André Pönitz"
<andre.poenitz at mathematik.tu-chemnitz.de> wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 08:49:45PM -0800, Alan Alpert wrote:
>> >> > As some of you may know, Shane has a new job and therefore has a
>>lot
>> >> > less time to spend on QtNetwork. He, Peter and I have discussed how
>> >> > we should maintain the module in the future. What we're proposing
>>is
>> >> > that Peter and I take over as joint maintainers since neither of us
>> >> > has the time to keep on top of things alone. Anyone looking to help
>> >> > out in this area should feel free to drop us a mail.
>> >>
>> >> This isn't a veto or anything, but having two 'equal' maintainers for
>> >> the same area sounds odd to me. I mean, it's perfectly fine that you
>> >> split up the workload, but the point of having a nominal maintainer
>>is
>> >> to have _one_ person to go to, and _one_ person who can decide if
>> >> there's need ... It doesn't mean that the maintainer can't delegate
>> >> his work though, up to the point that whomever he trusts can act as a
>> >> de-facto decision maker, too.
>> >
>> > Well, I am pretty much in the other camp. I see no problem here,
>> > neither of the setup in general (better bus factor, less chance of
>> > overload, something that rather should be encouraged...) nor with Rich
>> > and Peter in particular.
>> 
>> You're missing the point of having a hierarchy, deliberately assign
>>clear
>> bottlenecks for responsibility (and they shouldn't be used that often).
>
>You are focusing on a secondary aspect while masking out the primary
>issue.
>
>The goal of the project is to create a usable product.
>
>Having a hierarchy might or might not be beneficial in achieving that
>goal.
>So far the assumption was that having it bears quite some value, as it
>helps to establish and to keep order. However, the hierarchy is not the
>primary goal.
>
>If two people, both with quite impressive track records in the project,
>ask
>to share the responsibilities of one position, the question is not whether
>it fits into the hierarchy, but whether it is beneficial for the project.

I couldn¹t agree more.

Cheers,
Lars

>
>Answering that question might involve considerations of practicability,
>and
>more, but theoretical considerations about the primacy of artifically
>introduced bottlenecks are unlikely to help.
>
>Andre'
>
>
>PS:
>
>> Back from the general to the specific, I'm definitely happy with
>> Richard and Peter stepping up if Shane no longer has time. It's better
>> to have too many good maintainers for a module than too few.
>> 
>> Since I think it'll be a long time until we hit a situation where the
>> designated tie breaker rule will be needed, I'd suggest we vote them
>> both in first and then tackle the general question of "shared
>> maintainerships" separately.
>
>I even agree.
>_______________________________________________
>Development mailing list
>Development at qt-project.org
>http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development