On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 11:06:52AM +0000, Edward Welbourne wrote: > Giuseppe D'Angelo: > >> I would also like to point out that, despite we have a repository, we > >> still don't have a tool for properly discussing the actual content of > >> QUIPs. > >> > >> * Gerrit does not work because comments cannot be threaded, they > >> don't stick to multiple reviews, and they can be ignored > >> * Email does not work (it may work for the overall direction, but not > >> for the in depth discussion) because a single message may cover > >> multiple discussion points, disrupting the threading, and > >> discussion points can get ignored (*) > > All of which plays into my desire to introduce you all to Critic [0]
Guys, the idea of QUIPs was to *fix* a problem, namely the current inability to pinpoint results of mailing list discussion. This *is* a problem for the Project, as lazy consensus on the mailing list is *the* official decision making process in the Qt Governance model, but it works in practice rather accidentally, if at all. Discussions are observed to deteriorate, develop into completely unrelated discussions, and even if something appears like consensus or the discussion dies, it typically turns out that different people think differently about what the consensus actually was, and the discussion re-starts half a year later. You both nicely demonstrate that this problem exist, thank you for that, but beyond that this particular sub-discussion misses the point. QUIPs were not meant to require new or different tooling, and I still believe such will be needed. The rough idea is that a topic is presented as usual on the mailing list, and when someone, usually the original proponent, gets the feeling that the usual rounds of bike-shedding, trolling and name-calling is over, and the occasional sensible arguments all have been heard, writes up what appears like a potential consensus and puts that on Gerrit, where some review process commences. The only difference to a normal review process I'd like to see would be a *much* higher bar for approval, to ensure that QUIPs are really close to consensus and to ensure some consistency within the set of QUIPs. None of this requires new tools, certainly not the bootstrapping of the first QUIP. There's also nothing changing processes, so everybody will be free to continue to present his views on his favourite tools in the future, but for now I'd really like to get this here done. IMNSHO it boils down to the question: Does anybody have any fundamental problem with main idea of having documents summarizing the lazy consensus of certain mailing list discussions? If not I'd call that a lazy consensus and would ask to proceed with reviewing the final wording on Gerrit. Andre' _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
