Importing kdiff3 - was - Re: Aw: Re: KDE inclusion

[Kevin Ottens]

Hello,

On Thursday, 25 January 2018 22:35:37 CET Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> El dijous, 25 de gener de 2018, a les 9:01:10 CET, Kevin Ottens va escriure:
> > On Thursday, 25 January 2018 00:08:03 CET Albert Astals Cid wrote:
> > > As I did with the last person that also was confused and annoyed by all
> > > this burocracy, just ask me any question you may have.
> > 
> > Oh come on... the bad mean bureaucracy argument now. Wanna look at the
> > Eclipse incubation process? Or the Apache one?
> 
> Can I use the "if all your friends jump from a balcony will you do it"
> defense?

Not really since my point was more that what we have in place is very very far 
from bureaucracy not that we should replicate other's bureaucracy. If you want 
an example of bureaucracy look at those friends who jump from a balcony. ;-)
 
> > Seriously it's just about having a person already within the community
> > making sure the new project needs get catered to and also making sure the
> > new project is on the right path to put in place rules and procedures
> > compatible with the rest of the community (and the Manifesto).
> 
> But how do you find that person? You're just an 'outsider', how do you find
> a random person to be your incubator guy? Because as it happens, it's the
> second time in a month or something that i have to volunteer.

Ah! That is interesting feedback. You're correct that we're currently assuming 
that someone will step in to do that and that there's enough of us and that 
we're responsible enough to do that when we see something we're interested in.

Personally for kdiff3, I'd have expected Kevin Funk to end up doing it, indeed 
he was first responder with "I'd love to see kdiff3 being adopted by KDE 
again". To me he sounded like a perfect sponsor.

I'd like to see that fixed. Right now, I'm not sure how, but if you're the 
only one indeed caring about new projects getting in, we have a more general 
community problem, it's just that the incubator makes it visible...

> I think it's much easier if we had guidelines and the rest was just "ask in
> kde-devel mailing list if you have further questions",

It'd be easier, but not better. Because then it's no different than "ask the 
GitHub support if you have further questions", and it's not what it's about.

In my previous email I mentioned this is *also* for the "sponsor" to touch 
base with the joining project to verify it's getting into fruition to *be* a 
KDE project (which is not just about having a repository on our 
infrastructure)... I know, pesky people and culture thing.

> and sure if you find a dedicated person for you, great, but requiring it
> feels weird, and also makes it for less scalability, as an example I already
> have an email from Michael that was sent only to me but anyone else in this
> list would have been able to answer, but he had to wait at least 14 hours
> for me to have time to answer it.

Maybe that needs to be made clearer in the wiki? I'd expect the sponsor to 
push the involved persons to ask these type of questions on public mailing 
lists indeed. One on one discussions are likely to happen but they must be the 
minority of the communication going on. The sponsor in that case is the fail 
safe mechanism to make sure an answer indeed happens in those public forums or 
trying to solve the case if no answer happened for some reason.

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud supporter of KDE, http://www.kdab.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20180126/f9f12f93/attachment.sig>