[Development] Qbs development

Lars Knoll lars.knoll at qt.io
Wed Sep 15 12:32:13 CEST 2021

Hi Ivan,

I also would very much like you to stay here. QBS is great project and something that came out of the Qt work and still has very strong ties to it.

I am fully with Tuukka that what we want is to make it a good experience and easy for people to work here in the project. Blocking other peoples work is certainly not in line with this.

The governance model has the ’no confidence’ clause for a reason and if you have tried other means before, I can and will of course arrange such a vote.


On 15 Sep 2021, at 12:18, Tuukka Turunen <tuukka.turunen at qt.io<mailto:tuukka.turunen at qt.io>> wrote:


I would not like Qbs development to move away from the Qt project. It is very unfortunate that you have had bad experience and misbehavior from one approver. We want to constantly improve the experience of working within the Qt project and naturally this kind of incidents are not doing that. Therefore, it is very good that you have raised the topic in the mailing list, as many were not aware of it earlier. On the positive side, I do not think there is any general hostility towards Qbs within the Qt projects – on the contrary I can see a lot of good co-operation.



From: Development <development-bounces at qt-project.org<mailto:development-bounces at qt-project.org>> on behalf of Иван Комиссаров <abbapoh at gmail.com<mailto:abbapoh at gmail.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 14. September 2021 at 20.49
To: Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io<mailto:lars.knoll at qt.io>>
Cc: Qt development mailing list <development at qt-project.org<mailto:development at qt-project.org>>
Subject: Re: [Development] Qbs development
Thanks for the response.
I can provide a third option - we can move Qbs out of the Qt Governance Model by moving to GitHub. I have raised this topic on our Discord server and the community overall seems positive - there were several votes for the migration and no votes against. This migration might be healthy to Qbs as a lot of newcomers are not familiar with Gerrit but familiar with GitHub and it’s pull-request model.
Also, it will clearly separate who can approve/reject patches to Qbs and to the rest of Qt world.
If there are no objections, I will create an INFRA issue about the migration - it should not be very hard to do.


14 сент. 2021 г., в 17:33, Lars Knoll <lars.knoll at qt.io<mailto:lars.knoll at qt.io>> написал(а):

Let’s also take up the formal part of the request.

On 13 Sep 2021, at 22:59, Иван Комиссаров <abbapoh at gmail.com<mailto:abbapoh at gmail.com>> wrote:
Also, some actions might be taken to prevent from happening in the future - if technically possible, I’d like to request the revoke of his approver rights on the Qbs project as per this part of the Qt Governance Model:
«In extreme circumstances Approver privileges can be revoked by a vote of no confidence, proposed by an existing Approver or Maintainer and arranged by the Chief Maintainer. Privilege revocation requires a two-thirds majority vote of those Approvers and Maintainers who express an opinion.» [3]

On 14 Sep 2021, at 12:34, Richard Weickelt <richard at weickelt.de<mailto:richard at weickelt.de>> wrote:
The question is whether this is an abuse of approver rights.

This is a relevant question for the Qt project. Any person with approver
rights has the ability to cause a production stop. Ivan is asking for help
in this particular case and I am seconding his request.

Ivan and Richard, do I understand you correctly that you’d like to have a formal vote of no confidence according to QUIP-2? Please understand that this clause is meant as a last resort, when other solutions have failed.

We will also need to consider that the Qt Governance Model only defines global Approver rights for all of the Qt Project. The request was however limited to QBS, so we would need to find a way to handle this. I can only see two options there, either we start extending our governance model here (can be done with a lazy consensus on that extension), or change the scope to the whole project having much more severe implications.

Ossi, I (and probably others on this mailing list) would also like to hear your view on this. As I stated in my previous mail in this thread, I strongly believe, that the people doing the actual work decide on the direction and individual changes. The Governance model states the same, the maintainer takes the decision in case no agreement can be reached. As far as I can see, your actions are conflicting with this.

Thank you,

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/development/attachments/20210915/d6e0b513/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Development mailing list