On Thursday 26 February 2015 21:05:31 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > even assuming that nobody else had an interest in this, you'd still need > rather good reasons to effectively sabotage another contributor's > interest, especially considering the majority situation.
I do have good reasons. See the other email. > > That implies discussion on technical content, which is what we're > > doing. As we're reaching no consensus, the Chief Maintainer should be > > asked to weigh in. > > as i see it, the discussion has just begun. calling for consensus - let > alone chief maintainer intervention - seems a tiny bit premature. it > also seems like a bit of an own goal, considering the CM's affiliation His affiliation is irrelevant. The CM has to weigh the technical benefits as well as the strategic benefits to the ecosystem and the cost/burden this places on the contributors and maintainers. -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
