List of Qt/Qt5 packages for Fedora WS

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 5:35 PM, drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 10:29 AM, Christian Schaller
>>> <cschalle at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Matthias and Lukas,
>>>> Thanks for this. Although I think we should as a formality vote on this addition, so that we have our paper trail in order.
>>>>
>>>> So I hereby ask the Working Group to vote on the inclusion of the package list provided by Lukas.
>>>>
>>>> To start with myself:
>>>> I vote in favour of adding these packages.
>>>
>>> I also vote in favour.
>>
>> OK, this is pretty sad.  Only 2 explicit votes from the entire WG?
>> I'm going to assume that Lukáš at least has an implicit +1 given that
>> he posted the list originally.  Matthias likely also has an implicit
>> +1.
>>
>> However, the rest of you have failed entirely.  Why is that?  Where
>> are the votes?  How hard is it to read an email and reply with "+1" or
>> a dissenting opinion?
>
> "Many of our decisions can be made through "lazy consensus". Under
> this model, an intended action is announced on the mailing list,
> discussed, and in the absence of a group of dissenting contributors
> within a few days, simply done. " [1]
>
> Wouldn't this fall into this or where are the objections? (Have not
> seen any) ... also:

A WG member called for a formal vote.  That would imply people should
actually vote.

> "For bigger issues, where there may be disagreement, or where there is
> long-term impact, or where an action may not easily be undone, we will
> put forth a formal proposal on the mailing list with a "[Proposal for
> Vote] header in the email Subject: field. Working group members can
> vote +1 to approve, -1 to disagree, or 0 to abstain; a majority vote
> is necessary for a measure to pass with abstain votes not being
> included in the count. Members have one week to record their votes on
> an official proposal. Members who do not vote within the voting period
> implicitly abstain. Non-members may comment on the item and (of
> course) discuss on the mailing list, but are asked to refrain from
> putting votes on official proposal threads. " [1]
>
> Is this no longer how things work? No vote in one week is supposed to
> mean abstain also the thread does not have the "[Proposal for Vote]"
> header in the subject.

The header was missing.  To be honest, I doubt it would have made a difference.

> So the process isn't working? Should we change it or are people simply
> using the "lazy consensus" rule?

Frankly, I think the process hasn't worked at all.  It might be great
for reducing overhead, but in hindsight it really hurts transparency.
We already had a similar thread on this and we created a trac
instance, which was at least a start but not a resounding success.  In
the same thread we floated the idea of doing public IRC meetings.  We
should probably follow through with that.

Even ignoring votes, there is very very little in the way of public
participation from WG members.  I didn't even get replies from many of
them when I asked if they still wanted to be on the WG.  Whether
that's because it's still unclear what we're doing or because they
don't read their desktop folder or because of apathy, I have no idea.
Whatever the reason, it gives an outward appearance of nothing being
done or (with more tinfoil) everything being done behind closed doors.
 Not helpful.

josh