On November 21, 2016 12:58:59 Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenha...@qt.io> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 20, 2016 at 08:38:50PM +0100, Giuseppe D'Angelo wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 12:29 PM, Oswald Buddenhagen >> <oswald.buddenha...@qt.io> wrote: >> > the repository has been created. >> >> 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, >> > when you use inline comments, the locality is good enough to > make threading generally unnecessary. > >> they don't stick to multiple reviews, >> > this is true, but becomes a real problem only if the change owner > doesn't bother handling all comments before pushing new changesets. > >> and they can be ignored >> > that's correct, and having real issue tracking would be advantageous > (which gerrit upstream knows very well). > otoh, it's the responsibility of the reviewers and the submitter (a role > we have intentionally restricted in this repo, mind you) to verify that > all comments have been (actually) acted upon. > >> Any idea to how to actually make this work? >> > how about taking the existing processes seriously and exercising social > pressure on those who think they are above them? Sorry, not everybody likes to use social pressure (mobbing). And could it be that the outcome of the argumentation is be quite different of what we would describe as good in the long run. My impression is generally that many smart people don't like too spend their time for that games. But people who thinks that their arguments are smarter think that they deserve to be chosen. Or let our describe it that way, the rationality of people is quite limited and you need a good framework to get a better outcome. You can easily derail cooperation with a dysfunctional framework. Is shown in many experiments and believe me, we are not different. Actually people who working in IT have more trouble because they often describe the world not as contingent but as based on a all-time, universal fundament (truth). So it's hard to compromise because that would be deviate from truth. If the discussion is based on experience it is actually quite positive to compromise because all arguments together give a bigger picture, based on much more experience. So the truth based world description leds to few 'specialists' discuss that matter but the latter is a cooperation of all people with experience about that matter. Neither is guaranteed to succeed but if you get the last in a cooperative mode you have a good chance. > _______________________________________________ > Development mailing list > Development@qt-project.org > http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
