xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate
From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2013 13:30:01 -0600
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, elder@xxxxxxxxxx, Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20131112173253.GA15089@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20131107220208.GY1935@xxxxxxx> <527C0F64.3010906@xxxxxxx> <527C4B27.6020205@xxxxxxxxxx> <527CC50D.4060905@xxxxxxxxxx> <20131108180337.GO10553@xxxxxxx> <20131108193424.GA11052@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20131108204605.GA1935@xxxxxxx> <20131112173253.GA15089@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Hey,

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:32:53AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 02:46:06PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > That really didn't happen Christoph.  It's not in my tree or in a pull 
> > request.
> 
> I'll take my back room complain back then, but I still think that this
> is not a useful way to discuss something like this.

Thanks.  Tact, Ben, Tact.  ;)

> > Linus, let me know what you want to do.  I do think we're doing a fair job
> > over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex
> > is too busy.  I know the RH people want more control, and that's
> > understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code
> > in.  Ouch.
> 
> I'd really like to see more diversity in XFS maintainers.  The SGI focus has
> defintively been an issue again and again because it seems when one SGI
> person is too busy the others usually are as well.  As mentioned before
> there's also been historically a way too high turnover, with the associated
> transition pains.

I think diversity in XFS maintainers is a great idea.  How wide of a net are
you suggesting we cast?  I guess it sort of depends upon what you feel is the
purpose of the file.
 
> By making sure we have a broader base for the maintainers, and a more open
> infrastructure we'll all win.

Agreed.

> Note that we already had that sort
> of instructure on kernel.org, but gave up on it because many people
> perceived the effort to re-gain the kernel.org accounts to high.

It is a little difficult to find your way into the web of trust.  Not everyone
is in a position to make way to a conference, or to meet people in person.  And
even then it can be intimidating to ask for a signature.
 
> I would also really like to get a clarification on "I know the RH people want
> more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to
> replace me to get their code in".  What specific people are you worried about
> an what code?  What makes "the RH people" less worthy to their code in than
> "the SGI" people.

I'm convinced we're having this discussion for the right reasons, so let's let
that line of discussion die where it is.  

Regards,
        Ben

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>