Thanks for the response. I can provide a third option - we can move Qbs out of the Qt Governance Model by moving to GitHub. I have raised this topic on our Discord server and the community overall seems positive - there were several votes for the migration and no votes against. This migration might be healthy to Qbs as a lot of newcomers are not familiar with Gerrit but familiar with GitHub and it’s pull-request model. Also, it will clearly separate who can approve/reject patches to Qbs and to the rest of Qt world. If there are no objections, I will create an INFRA issue about the migration - it should not be very hard to do. Ivan
> 14 сент. 2021 г., в 17:33, Lars Knoll <lars.kn...@qt.io> написал(а): > > Hi, > > Let’s also take up the formal part of the request. > >>> On 13 Sep 2021, at 22:59, Иван Комиссаров <abba...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Also, some actions might be taken to prevent from happening in the future - >>> if technically possible, I’d like to request the revoke of his approver >>> rights on the Qbs project as per this part of the Qt Governance Model: >>> «In extreme circumstances Approver privileges can be revoked by a vote of >>> no confidence, proposed by an existing Approver or Maintainer and arranged >>> by the Chief Maintainer. Privilege revocation requires a two-thirds >>> majority vote of those Approvers and Maintainers who express an opinion.» >>> [3] >> >> >> On 14 Sep 2021, at 12:34, Richard Weickelt <rich...@weickelt.de> wrote: >> The question is whether this is an abuse of approver rights. >> >> This is a relevant question for the Qt project. Any person with approver >> rights has the ability to cause a production stop. Ivan is asking for help >> in this particular case and I am seconding his request. > > > Ivan and Richard, do I understand you correctly that you’d like to have a > formal vote of no confidence according to QUIP-2? Please understand that this > clause is meant as a last resort, when other solutions have failed. > > We will also need to consider that the Qt Governance Model only defines > global Approver rights for all of the Qt Project. The request was however > limited to QBS, so we would need to find a way to handle this. I can only see > two options there, either we start extending our governance model here (can > be done with a lazy consensus on that extension), or change the scope to the > whole project having much more severe implications. > > > Ossi, I (and probably others on this mailing list) would also like to hear > your view on this. As I stated in my previous mail in this thread, I strongly > believe, that the people doing the actual work decide on the direction and > individual changes. The Governance model states the same, the maintainer > takes the decision in case no agreement can be reached. As far as I can see, > your actions are conflicting with this. > > Thank you, > Lars >
_______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
