On Thursday, 19 May 2022 23:16:23 PDT Marc Mutz wrote:
> Maybe you can indicate which sessions you're personally interested in, so we
> can take that into account?
>
> I think it makes sense to have you in the C++20 session, so I allocated it
> first thing on the second day. If your interests
I’ve pushed a change to QUIP-2 for review, hopefully capturing at least some of
the discussion correctly. Will try to update as we clarify the various aspects
of the process, and would be great if native English speakers and perhaps
legalese-savvy folks could participate:
On Fri, 20 May 2022 10:31:03 +
Morten Sørvig wrote:
> That’s fair point. The QT_ environment variables are often sharp
> tools, and do make it possible to configure Qt in such a way that it
> appears broken.
>
> I’m not sure I see what KDE could realistically change here - given
> that they
On 19 May 2022, at 16:32, Ilya Fedin
mailto:fedin-ilja2...@ya.ru>> wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2022 14:20:05 +
Morten Sørvig mailto:morten.sor...@qt.io>> wrote:
Looks inconclusive to me - no clear consensus either way. (I’m also
not sure if it's a bug - it’s just "the current behavior")
Hi everybody,
Sorry for being a bit slow to answer, the last days were a bit hectic for me :)
As I’m for the moment still the Chief Maintainer, I guess it’s also my
responsibility to get the nomination and voting process organised.
I do agree that we will need a full vote of all maintainers,
Hi, and thank you for your comments.
1. It’s in CEST, I just adjusted the wiki – sorry for the mistake.
2. Ideally we should have one track to avoid conflicts, but it might be the
case to open a second track.
3. The timeslots are flexible and I propose we make adjustments as we go.
If
Hi,
On 19/05/2022 18:52, Giuseppe D'Angelo via Development wrote:
* could it be possible to adjust the timeslots in order to optimize for
the majority of the developers, who are in the CEST timezone?
Rechecking the wiki page, I think there's a confusing bit of information
that threw me off:
> On 18. May 2022, at 10:28, Lars Knoll wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> As such, I won’t have too much time to spend with Qt in the future anymore,
> and will resign from my position as the Chief Maintainer because of that.
Thanks for your time and contributions!
> Either way, let’s see what other
With lazy consensus, in case of a single candidate, it means “nobody objects”.
There is still an implicit vote: those who are in favour send a +1. But if *one
single* maintainer objects (and that can be done privately to the current Chief
Maintainer), then the candidate does not become chief
Thank you for your invaluable contribution in the role as Chief Maintainer over
the years, Lars!
Regarding the way forward; I agree with André Somers that lazy consensus will
not do, the QUIP explicitly requires a vote. I also agree that objecting to a
candidate shouldn't require one to also
Hi Thiago,
> I can only join sessions between 7:00 and 9:30 CEST, and after 16:00. I don't
> need to join the keynote, so I won't force people to wake up early for that
> one. But please bear the times in mind if you'd like me to join.
Maybe you can indicate which sessions you're personally
Hi,
Based on the wording I agree, it is clear that all maintainers should vote in
this case, and it is a simple majority of those maintainers. Any maintainer who
does not vote is not counted as part of the total, so if there is a single
candidate then a vote is redundant, because you are
12 matches
Mail list logo
