From: Linus Arver <linusa@google.com>
To: Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im>
Cc: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>,
Linus Arver via GitGitGadget <gitgitgadget@gmail.com>,
git@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: add MAINTAINERS file
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:47:31 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <owlyzfuarm1o.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZgukEQVqOgqAIIVR@tanuki>
Patrick Steinhardt <ps@pks.im> writes:
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 10:59:53AM -0700, Linus Arver wrote:
>> Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:
>>
>> > Linus Arver <linusa@google.com> 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.
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> 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".
>>
>> 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.
No problem (I also like to think worst-case scenarios, so thanks for the
thought experiment).
Initially I agreed with the concerns you raised, but on further thinking
I don't have the same concerns any more, for two reasons.
(1) It's impossible to tell if someone is actually intentionally
sabotaging the interests of a competitor --- simply because no one
will admit to doing so openly on this list.
(2) Even if we do have authority figures on this project, if they
block a patch series from being merged, the reasons they give must
remain purely technical. Otherwise, I think such authority figures
will compromise (lose) their reputation pretty quickly.
For (2) it could be that they could block something for both $DAYJOB and
technical reasons, but I think this is still fine. The fact that they
have $DAYJOB reasons wouldn't take away any merit from the technical
reasons.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-04 0:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-23 3:27 [PATCH] RFC: add MAINTAINERS file Linus Arver via GitGitGadget
2024-03-23 19:19 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-25 2:51 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-27 5:33 ` Linus Arver
2024-03-27 7:17 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-03-30 18:03 ` Linus Arver
2024-03-30 21:44 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-01 21:33 ` Taylor Blau
2024-04-01 22:13 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-04-02 0:22 ` Linus Arver
2024-04-02 5:39 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-04-02 5:46 ` Eric Sunshine
2024-04-02 5:59 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-03-26 22:24 ` Linus Arver
2024-03-26 23:39 ` Taylor Blau
2024-03-27 0:05 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-27 4:32 ` Linus Arver
2024-03-27 13:29 ` Junio C Hamano
2024-03-30 17:59 ` Linus Arver
2024-04-02 6:22 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-04-04 0:47 ` Linus Arver [this message]
2024-04-02 7:00 ` Patrick Steinhardt
2024-04-02 17:00 ` Junio C Hamano
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=owlyzfuarm1o.fsf@fine.c.googlers.com \
--to=linusa@google.com \
--cc=git@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gitgitgadget@gmail.com \
--cc=gitster@pobox.com \
--cc=ps@pks.im \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).