From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from wfout6-smtp.messagingengine.com (wfout6-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.149]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72EA9199B0 for ; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 06:22:15 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.123.149 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712038937; cv=none; b=Q09tYXeE1V2Q7aJw6aQAGt5FRdHwgVntpDZRj2IEYWfxX2YsbOUAfyqHOGcm64XRPAGZNRZSp5dLN/yJ/2M8NYx7SpaclZHAruqTy5aXB3hg7X08gFa75Hvqyhsm5rHXChOIpJwGf1sBR1QwltCEh8De8f4K3G8qgfZjjxCqqGc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712038937; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OnrFBsmsJOc+Wj/+yUs6n5k+03yBRfCFNDMoMU52NDo=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=u/soWi4hgfOyJN0rL7jYcGkj4WQu62+c7dHYsohbpDw+4hPAquOo7he+Cv18qkcrwQxHRbJUhh7Gqa1900MKhyMDiRnNdiqvdHDaycpiQL4Rc/rkFZ/et2yKp3+judxXkgbY9pz1+BFVTM4mTQ6wE3+e7+j04zA61Ocs1YKJCss= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pks.im; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b=APAXaKmk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b=rpbMt0rr; arc=none smtp.client-ip=64.147.123.149 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=pks.im Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pks.im header.i=@pks.im header.b="APAXaKmk"; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.i=@messagingengine.com header.b="rpbMt0rr" Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.46]) by mailfout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24ED1C00091; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 02:22:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Tue, 02 Apr 2024 02:22:14 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pks.im; h=cc:cc :content-type:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to :in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm2; t=1712038933; x=1712125333; bh=OnrFBsmsJO c+Wj/+yUs6n5k+03yBRfCFNDMoMU52NDo=; b=APAXaKmke+8NrnyMtY8pCPDt1P /ENJ56ji7XKA95Bw9aoHTcKdzTIauFW0OhDTn3Cimn2CgBMnwGVHU4CAOprFiVOH Q8ftJId+7PmMkG6rFkD/Qg1LcGvSJNAG0p1tCyRLhSKBq0O2pJOkobqWqIBSkLOX L22KhTVJ17wASheIcJH2Nxwu1Fu4IuEYvYqb9GDP7abE8W84BtE1Vp40bZAat/qS iq5moe2bXcQHtr5bzaXhQXHcTkV4H/NLg0DWM9PxsPlBHm+jouTjpm1TFf8lWmMo a+ZxDc1DD7S4eptyLG6qdUu6F9x5ci1DVYCXOL45UV5Ntlfre96UWa5VIUZQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:cc:content-type:content-type:date:date :feedback-id:feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:subject:subject:to :to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1712038933; x=1712125333; bh=OnrFBsmsJOc+Wj/+yUs6n5k+03yB RfCFNDMoMU52NDo=; b=rpbMt0rr35hnX8S8PcgKqQG3PTGFhjiA5WI3DKQmo15K S8GiO6snBiezjum4SpX8IsasZ+mZWxB4c6KLYnWJf0HOC2ym6Mr/3T42qFEJWQUu 5qrC7MdTxqNDjit/1WLwGFBoguXA13nr9JZlNXgFabUFR0lqylPSUoaTGEFlNHe6 rjDpWt4FBpozgICe9UP6Zn8bRSgGSaHY+5/6duhSyeKWlZv1A6sbOnJP5rmsX+iV k6x3sBeNZu6qYbAc9HTHyxVfmOd0QoJ6R9y0vv/NMWxRjRzaP6z+SQ79arrsEM9j ekdU01LMwA6thGFZ+PPaHJBiVHX0U7L7AEJaF6M+EQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvledrudefuddguddtjecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpeffhffvvefukfhfgggtuggjsehgtdorredttddvnecuhfhrohhmpefrrght rhhitghkucfuthgvihhnhhgrrhguthcuoehpshesphhkshdrihhmqeenucggtffrrghtth gvrhhnpeehfefhuedtvedtfeeiteeugefgfeelgeelveehffeukeelfefhieekteevudfh ffenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpsh esphhkshdrihhm X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: i197146af:Fastmail Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Tue, 2 Apr 2024 02:22:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: by vm-mail (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id 43cf6218 (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO); Tue, 2 Apr 2024 06:22:03 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2024 08:22:09 +0200 From: Patrick Steinhardt To: Linus Arver Cc: Junio C Hamano , Linus Arver via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: add MAINTAINERS file Message-ID: References: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="TOv08J3Nku5q8ROM" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: --TOv08J3Nku5q8ROM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 10:59:53AM -0700, Linus Arver wrote: > Junio C Hamano writes: >=20 > > Linus Arver writes: > > > >> I realize that such an idea is beyond the scope of a simple MAINTAINERS > >> (or similar) file that's checked into the Git code repo, but I think > >> it's worth stating as a thought experiment. > > > > As we already have agreed that neither of us care the exact format > > of the file (yet), regardless of how a contributor, who is about to > > send a patch, will find an area "maintainer" to help the patch along > > the process, it is far more important to discuss and decide what > > responsibilities and authorities are expected of these maintainers. >=20 > I'm starting to think that the new responsibility should be as small as > possible, and build from there. So the smallest bit of (initial?) > responsibility expected of the new roster of maintainers could be > "maintainer must respond to CC pings on the list within 7 days". >=20 > For those who have more time to spend on the project, the next rung of > responsibility could be "maintainer is available to review patches > outside of their domain of expertise if no one else has reviewed the > series in 7 days". >=20 > I haven't thought too much about the "authority" part yet. One thing that makes me feel a bit uneasy about the authority part is that contributors to Git are quite often direct competitors on the company level, as well. This never has been a problem in the past, quite on the contrary: I really value the cross-competitor collaboration we have in this project. But I have to wonder what it can potentially lead to if we did assign more authority to some contributors. Theoretically speaking, that would allow for sabotaging interests of a direct competitor. Mind you, I don't think this would happen in the current state of the project. I'm merely trying to think about worst-case scenarios, which may or may not be helpful in this context. Patrick > > The development community has been fairly loosely organized so far, > > but I'd like to see responsibility and authority spread a bit more > > widely yet still not too thinly to compromise the project integrity. >=20 > Agreed. --TOv08J3Nku5q8ROM Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCgAdFiEEF9hrgiFbCdvenl/rVbJhu7ckPpQFAmYLpBAACgkQVbJhu7ck PpQcjQ//U4qrWHTFDRvTABLByJAJlcAmhMRe5W8Q27UrIOqH4pcOBeh7+ob0g3xH ud4Xr+E5LWqwiib+zfJt5YifvEht0eT3NTAnwX54z3ZLVnkkwUh8kBFanIwEYM9D 6xG37rI890WrqlS3Y1Bwsww79ELIuw37JPXQYtBS7HpCgm795eRuklMEg1ZgB/PD cIhAqqm6dyaCX8fxe7JR728YwYc2BYKxmh/vBd0tAjUg+cki8TSIDSGp8Lzp/2B8 oiBpR9woIQuRuO10dyvori1i34RNLa7UX3JHHL2wfd9ug8sfc6OADufqejl9jbrw KaFHVyzEunw7+a9qHk54L7vlXO2hTiUOhbqprn0SnojXNnUNso1bSLEYjTcYzvDc Qu51GDpCwY4aaX+0iiNum5BZFHEOMaliZxKgTFyfbCd/izKXcvWz9C0mDWSigg9H AGy3hWtZ6fZCQFsoYZ9psRmn/+C90K7YOOHDu6zr5WC68sEECMTKJg1Gs9Z9R0pJ gMrko2UluoFB8CNiCRgyjzzRqdqEOYvkDrlvXJ/Vde1ZTsUcWyo04NLAk77Fv1od IQbFI4ujVBvZs0ECMZSn9z8o15uAtz/rhxHOMNnAGs+36JMS7wmgOVfLk/vQ70cb 3WJ4uuRHSpAlHbjXIgVjgJ5nLOwGKT5u+uJg4rDx044P2HgkShc= =wclN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --TOv08J3Nku5q8ROM--