Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: An organizational suggestion

[Jamie Lokier]

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: <person>" so they don't have
to deal with much, just occasional rare feedback.

-- Jamie