On November 21, 2016 20:02:54 André Pönitz <apoen...@t-online.de> wrote:
> 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. > I think it's modeled after Python PEP and RFCs? Do we have a first QUIP who is describing the process? I think we should copy a successful model like https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/ and don't try to be smarter. And yes, I don't think document a random email conversation is the answer. > Andre' > > _______________________________________________ > 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