Discussion:
The Open-By-Rule Governance Benchmark
Kristen Eisenberg
2011-10-27 09:41:18 UTC
Permalink
This article contains some measurements that might be worth applying to
Qt's proposed open governance framework:


Kristen Eisenberg
Billige Flüge
Marketing GmbH
Emanuelstr. 3,
10317 Berlin
Deutschland
Telefon: +49 (33)
5310967
Email:
utebachmeier at
gmail.com
Site:
http://flug.airego.de
- Billige Flüge vergleichen
Andre Somers
2011-10-27 16:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kristen Eisenberg
This article contains some measurements that might be worth applying to
Which article would that be exactly? Did you forget to attach it perhaps?

André
Post by Kristen Eisenberg
Kristen Eisenberg
Billige Flüge
Marketing GmbH
Emanuelstr. 3,
10317 Berlin
Deutschland
Telefon: +49 (33)
5310967
utebachmeier at
gmail.com
http://flug.airego.de - Billige Flüge vergleichen
_______________________________________________
Opengov mailing list
http://lists.qt-labs.org/listinfo/opengov
Quim Gil
2011-10-27 23:50:35 UTC
Permalink
(((Moving the thread to qt-project.org, please follow there)))
Post by Kristen Eisenberg
This article contains some measurements that might be worth applying to
Hi, I guess you refer to
http://opensource.com/life/11/2/open-rule-governance-benchmark

Open Meritocratic Oligarchy
OK: http://wiki.qt-project.org/The_Qt_Governance_Model &
http://wiki.qt-project.org/Maintainers

Good Rules

- Modern license. OK: http://qt-project.org/legal.html#licensing

- No copyright aggregation. OK: http://qt-project.org/legal.html

- Trademark policy. OK: http://qt-project.org/trademarkpolicy.html

- Road map and schedule. OK (just refreshed in Qt Dev days, landing to
the website as we speak): http://developer.qt.nokia.com/wiki/Qt_5.0
http://wiki.qt-project.org/Release_Management
http://wiki.qt-project.org/Qt_Creator_Releases


By Its Fruit
Bear in mind that we are just completing the first week of Qt Project.
However:

- Multiple co-developers. OK: apart from Nokia there are several
contributors already now from other companies and individuals on their
own or under the KDE umbrella.

- Forking is feasible. OK: it is a feasible scenario +
http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php

- Transparency. potentially OK: since last Friday "what is not visible
doesn't exist" - Lars Knoll. Still needs to be fully demonstrated but
any transparency problem will become a bug with top priority.

--
Quim
Thiago Macieira
2011-10-28 07:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quim Gil
Hi, I guess you refer to
http://opensource.com/life/11/2/open-rule-governance-benchmark
Thanks for the link.
Post by Quim Gil
Good Rules
- Modern license. OK: http://qt-project.org/legal.html#licensing
- No copyright aggregation. OK: http://qt-project.org/legal.html
That's debatable. While the author talks about copyright assignment, which is
what the GNU project requires for example, many in the community consider the
existence of a license agreement giving one entity more rights than others to
be an equal problem.

That said, the CLA for Qt includes the rationale of why it exists, which many
(including me) agree it's for a greater good.
Post by Quim Gil
- Trademark policy. OK: http://qt-project.org/trademarkpolicy.html
Are you claiming "OK" because the policy exists or because it complies with
what the article says? Note that you can summarise the article by saying "the
trade marks are equally accessible or inaccessible to all".

During the Spring and Summer, I remember discussing that the trademark would
be licensable under a license similar to the Linux® mark. Do you know how the
Qt® 11-page license text compares to the Linux one?

BTW, the link to the license PDF is wrong in that webpage.
Post by Quim Gil
By Its Fruit
Bear in mind that we are just completing the first week of Qt Project.
- Multiple co-developers. OK: apart from Nokia there are several
contributors already now from other companies and individuals on their
own or under the KDE umbrella.
- Forking is feasible. OK: it is a feasible scenario +
http://www.kde.org/community/whatiskde/kdefreeqtfoundation.php
I'd note here that the article says nothing about the trademark policy
allowing the use of the marks for the fork. That needs to be clear, as most
forks do change the names and marks they use and clearly indicate they are, in
fact, a fork.
Post by Quim Gil
- Transparency. potentially OK: since last Friday "what is not visible
doesn't exist" - Lars Knoll. Still needs to be fully demonstrated but
any transparency problem will become a bug with top priority.
I'd add: we're being very clear that all decisions happen only when publicly
discussed in the mailing lists. Face-to-face meetings, including the summits,
are permitted, but conclusions reached there must be posted to the relevant
mailing lists before they can be considered a decision.
--
Thiago Macieira - thiago (AT) macieira.info - thiago (AT) kde.org
Software Architect - Intel Open Source Technology Center
PGP/GPG: 0x6EF45358; fingerprint:
E067 918B B660 DBD1 105C 966C 33F5 F005 6EF4 5358
l***@nokia.com
2011-10-28 08:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quim Gil
- Transparency. potentially OK: since last Friday "what is not visible
doesn't exist" - Lars Knoll. Still needs to be fully demonstrated but
any transparency problem will become a bug with top priority.
How about CI results? I understood those were still to be published?
Yes, it'll be good to get the results published. But this will require
some time and work.

For now it's good to know that the CI system does not allow any failure or
regression. So you can simply check which tests are excluded in the pro
files or marked as 'insignificant'. These might have failures, everything
else is guaranteed to pass on the tested platforms.

Cheers,
Lars

Loading...