Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposal for a new Committer model

["Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neil Horman [mailto:nhorman@tuxdriver.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2016 7:12 PM
> To: Mcnamara, John <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
> Cc: dev@dpdk.org
> Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] Proposal for a new Committer model
> 
> > ...
> >
> > B) Designate alternates to serve as backups for the maintainer when
> > they are unavailable.  This provides high-availablility, and sounds
> > very much like your proposal, but in the interests of clarity, there
> > is still a single maintainer at any one time, it just may change to
> > ensure the continued merging of patches, if the primary maintainer isn't
> available.
> > Ideally however, those backup alternates arent needed, because most of
> > the primary maintainers work in merging pull requests, which are done
> > based on the trust of the submaintainer, and done during a very
> > limited window of time.  This also partially addreses multi-vendor
> > fairness if your subtree maintainers come from multiple participating
> companies.
> >
> > Regards
> > Neil
> >
> >
> >
> 
> Soo, I feel like we're wandering away from this thread.  Are you going to
> make a change to the comitter model?

Hi,

Yes. I think we have consensus on the main parts. I'll re-draft a proposal that we can discuss and then add to the contributors guide.

John