On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 18:17:30 PST m...@herrdiel.de wrote: > --> You say that KDAB contributed much work and that you: "[...] hope to > have KDAB back contributing", but you also state, that they are not > exactly much-needed: "Everything continues just as before."
Please insert "else" in the sentence, so it reads "everythine *else* continues just as before", meaning that KDAB's sudden withdrawal was noticed, but did not affect the rest of the development. Note that they have since begun participating again. Whether it's to the same level, I can't say yet. > What you **don't** say is, that you "genuinely wish to treat the Qt > Project as an Open Governance project and that external contributions > are welcomed and valued." > > There must be a reason not to write this sentence. Because it goes without saying. > For example: > - In your eyes: is Qt currently still being treated as an Open > Governance project by the Qt company? >From someone who is independent from both TQtC and from KDAB: yes. > - If yes: will it continue to be treated this way or are there plans to > change that? I can't speak for TQtC, but I don't see why they should change this in any way. It would only make things worse for them, by having to pick up maintenance of parts that are maintained by others today. Like me. Not to mention all the bad PR it would generate. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Interest mailing list Interest@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/interest
