[Development] Maintainership of QtNetwork

Shane Kearns shane.kearns.qt at gmail.com
Wed Nov 13 19:33:27 CET 2013

I would often have discussions with Peter and Rich over IRC about complex
QtNetwork issues and I am confident in their ability to work together on
If for organisational reasons it is preferred to have single maintainers,
I'd suggest Rich for the socket/SSL/security parts and Peter for
QNetworkAccessManager with one of them as the overall module maintainer.
(in the same way that the gui module was subdivided between several

On 5 November 2013 20:58, 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.
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20131113/caf52010/attachment.html>

More information about the Development mailing list