From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3XSv-0000kh-Cv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:26:21 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3XSt-0000jD-VS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:26:21 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=33803 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K3XSt-0000j3-OY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:26:19 -0400 Received: from mail2.shareable.org ([80.68.89.115]:58768) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K3XSt-0004XM-TN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 10:26:20 -0400 Received: from jamie by mail2.shareable.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1K3XSr-0008Vi-Hn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:26:17 +0100 Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:26:17 +0100 From: Jamie Lokier Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: An organizational suggestion Message-ID: <20080603142617.GA32331@shareable.org> References: <193307.64140.qm@web57014.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <18501.3725.422151.796839@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20080603100036.GA25740@shareable.org> <87F66ED9-C3F7-4E2F-BA75-2522B03A1E00@web.de> <48452663.8090506@siemens.com> <18501.6823.92589.960622@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20080603110346.GC25740@shareable.org> <18501.14842.2805.868161@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <484540A0.6040907@siemens.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <484540A0.6040907@siemens.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Jan Kiszka wrote: > I think we don't need this agreement-in-advance if the people who > finally decide about commits are neutral due to their affiliation or > have proven to be neutral despite of it, both politically as well as > technically - someone being deeply involved in one of both approaches > /may/ look biased at things, naturally. As a user (not really a contributor), it looks like vague neutrality is what we have now. E.g. the command-line and (proposed) config file are really messy, it looks like people try to do 'just technical' patches to those because they might be accepted, rather than a coherent design. That's just an example, but a visible one. But I'm probably not seeing a lot that goes on off-list. I think the project would benefit from some more vision for it's next step, so that _potential_ contributors (like me) have an idea what it's worth looking it, and how best to ensure contributions are useful. Right now, there are several bugs, improvements (if you agree :-) and documentation I'm curious to look at, but I'm not going to waste my time if I think it won't be used. Writing notes on a disorganised wiki does not count as worth my time. I think encouraging more subsystem maintainers would be good. I have a problem with USB tablet at the moment - Windows Server 2003's driver doesn't work with it - and no idea who to send to. Bugs like that reported to the list often don't get a response, but I'm sure someone cares. Assuming so, it suggests they might like to be a contact - even if it's as specific as "USB tablet: " so they don't have to deal with much, just occasional rare feedback. -- Jamie