Re: [dpdk-dev] [dpdk-techboard] decision process and DPDK scope

[Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>]

On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:49:05PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:20:47 +0000
> Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > > I think we can use this case to avoid seeing it again in the future.
> > > I suggest that the technical board should check whether every new proposed
> > > features are explained, discussed and approved enough in the community.
> > > If needed, the technical board meeting minutes will give some lights to
> > > the threads which require more attention.
> > > Before adding a new library or adding a major API, there should be
> > > some strong reviews which include discussing the DPDK scope.
> > >   
> > 
> > The bigger question here is the default position of the DPDK community -
> > default accept, or default reject. Your statements above all are very
> > much keeping in the style of default reject i.e. every patch or change
> > suggested is assumed to be unfit for acceptance unless reviewed in
> > detail to prove beyond doubt otherwise.
> > 
> > I believe that we should change this default position, as I think that
> > reject by default is hurting the community and will continue to do so.
> > 
> > NOTE: I am not suggesting that we allow all code in with zero review,
> > but I am suggesting that if something has been reviewed and acked by at
> > least one reviewer it should be autom
> 
> I agree but in a more assertive manner. The maintainer should be the default
> and active reviewer of all submissions. Like other projects the maintainers job
> is to review and accept (or provide constructive feedback). Otherwise the
> job could just by done by some manager.
> 
> But recently, I have changed my mind. The current DPDK project model is not
> scaling well. After hearing some of the arguments in favor of a multiple
> committer model (see "Maintainers Don't Scale" )
> https://kernel-recipes.org/en/2016/talks/maintainers-dont-scale/
> 
> And comments on lwn:
> https://lwn.net/Articles/703005/
> 
Might it be worthwhile to try out having 2 or 3 committers to each tree
and see how it works? From the presentation you link too, the claim is
that moving from 1 to 2 is the hardest, and expanding beyond that
becomes easier.

/Bruce