On 30-08-2019 00:17, Ben Bucksch wrote: > most core developers disagree with you. Factually untrue on many levels actually. Not even a majority involved in this thread, let alone devs from m-c. Not that it's a vote.  -Magnus

On 30-08-2019 01:38, Jörg Knobloch wrote: > On 29 Aug 2019 23:00, Magnus Melin wrote: >> Clearly someone needs to take the decision, and in this case it's the >> module owner. > > Right. > > If I understood it correctly, Philipp decided on 100 chars for Calendar. Up to him. I would still recommend going with 80 there too for consistency with everything else. Calendar had good reasons to use 100ch earlier, due to their non-standard use of the 4 space indent which meant 80ch doesn't get you far. With the shift to 2 space indent now, I don't see good reasons to diverge. > > What has the MailNews owner decided? Like you saw in the other sub-thread, that would be 80ch.  -Magnus

Jörg Knobloch wrote on 29.08.19 23:43: > On 29 Aug 2019 23:17, Ben Bucksch wrote: >> https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/tb-planning/2017-July/005610.html >> The Engineering Council was deliberately established to be over the >> module owner, see section B3. > > The Thunderbird Council passed a vote on 2017-06-23 as follows: > "Engineering decisions: New module owners (makes decisions): Kent, > Jörg, Magnus, Ben". I confirm that vote. I was present as Council member. Kent's email was a reaction to that vote. > This group if "technical directors" was destined to take decisions of > far reaching consequences. Magnus wasn't present at the meeting and he > later declared the vote null and void since it wasn't inline with the > Mozilla Governance system of Module Owners. Given that 4 out of 7 Council votes are the majority, and the Council is officially responsible for steering the project, I claim that this was valid. The fact that this mailing list exists (which is where the ESC meets, in form of a mailing list, and it was deliberately created as open list, so that all core developers can participate and voice their opinion and be heard), and the 3 of us (Jörg, Magnus and me) are discussing, shows that the ESG is very well in place and active. That's all I say about this. I'll otherwise let this case rest, because line widths are not important enough to fight over, and I regret that I made a debate out of it. I'm sorry for that. We should focus on renewing the core architecture of Thunderbird instead. > Conclusion: The project has a deficit of technical governance That I certainly agree with. I love the work that BenC and Goeff are doing. Goeff is reactive to addon author requests. This is great. But the core questions like "everything is a URL" are not tackled at all. I would invite BenC to lead here for such infrastructural and core API changes. Ben