From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-pf1-f201.google.com (mail-pf1-f201.google.com [209.85.210.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A0D34A33 for ; Thu, 4 Apr 2024 00:47:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712191655; cv=none; b=DVzwi3qGfQ5ib9hV6dPazMtfIwHN6HCwGppFVLOMMHA9fD/LSzBVkspBraPqCjo5ZyfUtAnZDloO6zh12bRPvrC06I6+NI8ZZpB2PJ3rabRs49dlIEWz8hB7IHLMGlWJJ0IHxdUqAa+9vKvZWOQJr4dz016B5vvSsgvRzSk5xog= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1712191655; c=relaxed/simple; bh=dG5vl36BxEiMBh70KP7pCSeuNV+b/ha78HcDQQd6Ktw=; h=Date:In-Reply-To:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=sOmVrGsCkBKtdf3WWp5aqMImqazOjRUbWbfqyMy92CQUkLpQ6P11DbHd0Vop4HwGzz2Wsy9oeqSdRTX2clpXXsKD40Dltmmn9Vsy63nKIPo1i/7jNGW4+OSjlDo8YpLwandB7frhCGoM8+wDdEDw7HVaigWzzQYzr85ZkO52YS8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--linusa.bounces.google.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b=Tf8KRUoE; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.210.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=flex--linusa.bounces.google.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com header.i=@google.com header.b="Tf8KRUoE" Received: by mail-pf1-f201.google.com with SMTP id d2e1a72fcca58-6e6c5b1377fso1072379b3a.1 for ; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:47:33 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20230601; t=1712191653; x=1712796453; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DICQyhtXxquTnih6ma4T5X4w24nlEsAiKOOxwQt806k=; b=Tf8KRUoEGMKZqO5gzxNmlg9ltHXXaVJOO+nXf05VwzerAD903JMsNPWw3cbrfcfH3D WC5iLnyMisxENJPVca1RDPvqXSISZfR5pSrGABe5wsYBbRbcw9qoOMBld9tWJpnWJyZA 7Iqkd3xgCDIPY+FV00pU4ZDpSrvDqWLmMOgKiOVjVoIgl9WqLirKBsVr1TA/w6xByx4A JNcEP+8LgXfe1TqGYepPpF5fV3amIbtr9NymQJAJ8wJQfFBodOXpAYKgfySAuCG1fniI rOemdXD//C5gUriX9Q5LwmI1gCOsx3zGRXtoSZ3vMZdssW8ezg4GwteWOgxMvMErVVQ+ ExZA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1712191653; x=1712796453; h=cc:to:from:subject:message-id:references:mime-version:in-reply-to :date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=DICQyhtXxquTnih6ma4T5X4w24nlEsAiKOOxwQt806k=; b=nHnAv2ebR1Vi53DMk8JqBh2b8o3tZehSbagfouZLa5nyocgjASc+r2Nu43fbYSobb9 spUDmhQwNV92H3ZyK4VpKxnF+s7jwAt/5CUvtNLpEcxLgsabM6LjfWCsrNK4AnDwok4C YWR+cRGb6XUQ4I7fsxWyXKs6RXQmZvlfnY2WlIckahIe4x5Jw9aHJ5lgOV5lTMN5FA8j JqYNwMuqeIPUxdbyxCaxMum8XrXvbTfzY/ktvDg2J2XQE1f2nIDAg6Hpd8bGbVPJTE3C zZMy+fXXSB/xuw0IksBaxuM4eIJbg3pdKO86EnLZL4i+VfzfIf/uHmXl3OWQNeDN+V/Q 00TQ== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVn6QCG+Gg6+4jut2quoLfLkWvw/nl4IrK8Byic4FaidbQ9s0HfFPwF/Br22DnQdeBUpavhThZgaO04RRmoJ8uJGl8r X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw6y4oRQZGtYQotvhCPPxxh/Q26SZCQz1+wmVs7hir3Jd8D4iXy qrqdG9WrKUf7Y7BiEDuIotaOpExA6Ecb3YzHAj9cBKf7YeDCZrTiUaZU23MJM5xboLkZn55Cs18 QAg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEwzW2POoH3PITFJCKhujLWcDvxGSZlNcMeUG8d7TlvfI3XAOtu/JrmnHFfl7V6mXUoQuCnN2WqVPY= X-Received: from fine.c.googlers.com ([fda3:e722:ac3:cc00:7f:e700:c0a8:2221]) (user=linusa job=sendgmr) by 2002:a05:6a00:7312:b0:6ec:e89e:ad7d with SMTP id lq18-20020a056a00731200b006ece89ead7dmr3138pfb.1.1712191653252; Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:47:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2024 17:47:31 -0700 In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 References: Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: add MAINTAINERS file From: Linus Arver To: Patrick Steinhardt Cc: Junio C Hamano , Linus Arver via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Patrick Steinhardt writes: > On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 10:59:53AM -0700, Linus Arver wrote: >> Junio C Hamano writes: >> >> > 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. >> >> 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.