From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qk0-f179.google.com (mail-qk0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D263558A for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 23:57:32 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-qk0-f179.google.com with SMTP id n21so242047145qka.3 for ; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:57:32 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=93FAvkhiI4iETXTwNN5j+NiNCRGrGlUfb9iLQPTNeB8=; b=oVAjXO36EGj/K5F4FoROGDGQwXOMWZMVzhkI4V+AuywEuhg6sF/CmiJt0iKigseQRF ghS/92i82W4fP4m+yPYFxQa1cK/ihcIRFd7EPNfNjTiunvxnai3XVUQuGRA3GMDHp4p8 uVThbBHa5bq3Tq1o3ZH1bTgmYdIwhNpAuXPqzYEy7PipQo4OApZCskaZV89BNNsKScXf XxvpsMiR79J8SFc+OLJysp9uClJWF5bVyctOi1H28hMk7Ayot4eKPnhusgnaiDeM+oLM s9xUu8h4jvum9DOcZMG/5lqSuWKaKfvae3U7j6Ewmg43XC2mYKCROhmanWDzbBWJ162V A+AQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=93FAvkhiI4iETXTwNN5j+NiNCRGrGlUfb9iLQPTNeB8=; b=cIZQBFHpkBHFzinfEmB18dWLrAZENkKVP9zDYoc2pJNf75IYwc5odwqO4lm3fDej0G qMnUdv9H9VC8UWQ7TdlesJ2AvQa4ECCKQKhgxG5l3HpctGLQncR+Ay8XXJ20ijEN/hRR 7pQ8yi/lg82/NIoVv2a13blEYZJrmLBhV6uKHxYduBddJBWDZ7/W3lKYmN40nXK6AzSV hUSnRp6CZJFRuZavS8L32SVdVxg5Wzi1uZ/gP9ywNPE1FVp/zg3ncJ0W4hklSlSS9ZIz Zp178I30SJX54+v+tn2jtaLv167SYxuRIxf94TGjX43IPGswUKlfmtwb2SpvUnLtdPkh AkUA== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC01n0HKqF5R/n3PZoZ86UlK2SMlf1EVg9W0bH0dLhTQTiUtYEACMj1wwWl8BC4GuJtb4coonWuHsrrfzDQ== X-Received: by 10.55.12.2 with SMTP id 2mr6704162qkm.68.1479423452302; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:57:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.200.41.61 with HTTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:57:31 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <1660077.mdFWPiNUk9@xps13> <20161116151348.GA31872@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> <20161116194251.GA7874@svelivela-lt.caveonetworks.com> From: Ed Warnicke Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 14:57:31 -0800 Message-ID: To: "Mcnamara, John" Cc: Jerin Jacob , "Richardson, Bruce" , Thomas Monjalon , "moving@dpdk.org" , "Yigit, Ferruh" , "yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com" , "De Lara Guarch, Pablo" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114c5c9e58d7880541871da5 Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Proposal a Committer model X-BeenThere: moving@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK community structure changes List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 22:57:33 -0000 --001a114c5c9e58d7880541871da5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 My recommendation would be this: 1) Start with a list of folks who've made significant contributions to the tree in question 2) Potentially winnow it from there For existing code bases, its important to start with folks who have a meritocratic history of contribution. Its important to note that is not necessarily the only criteria, there are a lot of intangibles as well. Not everybody who writes a lot of code wants to be a committer or would be good at being a committer. But if there is code to have history with, and you don't have history of contributing to it, it probably doesn't make sense for you to be a committer. Ed On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Mcnamara, John wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 7:43 PM > > To: Richardson, Bruce > > Cc: Thomas Monjalon ; Mcnamara, John > > ; moving@dpdk.org; Yigit, Ferruh > > ; yuanhan.liu@linux.intel.com; De Lara Guarch, > > Pablo > > Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Proposal a Committer model > > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 03:13:49PM +0000, Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:45:55AM +0000, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > Now, I believe multi-committer model is much more conducive to this > > > way of working (though it does not strictly require multiple > > committers). > > > So long as one trusted committer (and all committers need to be > > > trusted) is happy with a patchset it should go in - provided a > > > reasonable review period has elapsed. There is too much waiting for > > > everyone to agree right now. > > > > The main question would be who will part of committers list? > > Hi, > > The initial list could be made up from someone from 6Wind, Intel and an > ARM based company. If it is felt that someone else could be added then that > could be proposed. > > The OvS community had reasonably good guidelines about adding/removing > committers. I'd suggest that we use something similar: > > https://github.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/ > Documentation/committer-grant-revocation.rst > > > > > > I believe the multi-committers model may not fix current consensus > > slowness issue. Instead, if we are focusing on reducing the workload of > > Thomas, then I think git pull request based scheme will reduce the > > workload. > > So, something like a Gerrit model? > > John > > --001a114c5c9e58d7880541871da5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
My recommendation would be this:

1) =C2= =A0Start with a list of folks who've made significant contributions to = the tree in question
2) =C2=A0Potentially winnow it from there

For existing code bases, its important to start with= folks who have a meritocratic history of contribution.
Its impor= tant to note that is not necessarily the only criteria, there are a lot of = intangibles as well.=C2=A0 Not everybody who writes a lot of code wants to = be a committer or would be good at being a committer.=C2=A0 But if there is= code to have history with, and you don't have history of contributing = to it, it probably doesn't make sense for you to be a committer.
<= div>
Ed

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:27 AM, Mcnamara, John <j= ohn.mcnamara@intel.com> wrote:


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jerin Jacob [mailto:jerin.jacob@caviumnetworks.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2016 7:43 PM
> To: Richardson, Bruce <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
> Cc: Thomas Monjalon <t= homas.monjalon@6wind.com>; Mcnamara, John
> <john.mcnamara@intel.com= >; moving@dpdk.org; Yigit, Fe= rruh
> <ferruh.yigit@intel.com>; yuanhan.liu@linux.in= tel.com; De Lara Guarch,
> Pablo <pablo.de.l= ara.guarch@intel.com>
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-moving] Proposal a Committer model
>
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 03:13:49PM +0000, Bruc= e Richardson wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 10:45:55AM +0000, Thomas Monjalon wrote:<= br> > >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Now, I believe multi-committer model is much more conducive to th= is
> > way of working (though it does not strictly require multiple
> committers).
> > So long as one trusted committer (and all committers need to be > > trusted) is happy with a patchset it should go in - provided a > > reasonable review period has elapsed. There is too much waiting f= or
> > everyone to agree right now.
>
> The main question would be who will part of committers list?
Hi,

The initial list could be made up from someone from 6Wind, Intel and an ARM= based company. If it is felt that someone else could be added then that co= uld be proposed.

The OvS community had reasonably good guidelines about adding/removing comm= itters. I'd suggest that we use something similar:

https://g= ithub.com/openvswitch/ovs/blob/master/Documentation/committer-gra= nt-revocation.rst


>
> I believe the multi-committers model may not fix current consensus
> slowness issue. Instead, if we are focusing on reducing the workload o= f
> Thomas, then I think git pull request based scheme will reduce the
> workload.

So, something like a Gerrit model?

John


--001a114c5c9e58d7880541871da5--