From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3F90CEC for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 22:29:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bedivere.hansenpartnership.com (bedivere.hansenpartnership.com [66.63.167.143]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8BE89713 for ; Thu, 6 Sep 2018 22:29:52 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <1536272989.6012.17.camel@HansenPartnership.com> From: James Bottomley To: Linus Torvalds Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2018 15:29:49 -0700 In-Reply-To: References: <1536263073.6012.3.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1536267088.6012.7.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <1536268421.6012.9.camel@HansenPartnership.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: ksummit Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 14:41 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:13 PM James Bottomley > wrote: > > > > However, I really think for an orderly succession plan, you need to > > be part of it rather than having a palace coup which could end up > > being really messy and divisive.  I suspect people treated your > > proposal last year as more of a joke last year because they didn't > > think you were serious.  If you're really serious about doing this, > > let's try to come up with the succession process in Edinburgh in > > October and see if we can run a Maintainer Summit with the new > > Leadership in Vancouver in November. > > So I do want to make it clear that it's not like I am all that > serious about it, because I'm perfectly happy to continue to do what > I've been doing for the past almost three decades. > > It's not like *I* care about the bus scenario, pretty much by > definition. > > Honestly, I think the real issue is when *others* have serious and > practical proposals. > > In many ways I think that is the real issue: people who feel like > there would be advantages to new models. > > The advantages could range from just the "I'd really prefer to work > with somebody else" to more of a "look, Linus isn't getting any > younger, so to make for a smooth transition we should start moving > towards xyz, because then in years we'll be ready". > > Regardless, I don't think _my_ opinions matter all that much on this, > and I honestly think some people might be more willing to speak their > mind without me in the room. > > And guys, it's not like my ego is all that fragile.  I think people > do know that.  So the only thing I *do* want to be serious about is > that if people actually come up with something that they honestly > agree is better, you don't need to worry about me throwing some > hissy-fit, and "take my ball and go home". > > That said, I think we all might have some very real doubts about how > practical it's going to be, and getting people to actually agree on > anything. > > What I do *not* want to see is some random flailing discussion while > we're all in the same room. Because I can think of more productive > things to do in Edinburgh, and most of them involve drinking. > > So I think people should have some real suggestions before-hand, not > some "let's leave it to an open discussion for the summit itself". OK, so here's a practical suggestion: let's propose two people to have ongoing push rights to your kernel tree from a vote of the maintainer summit invitees in Edinburgh. You establish the day to day ground rules (say X takes the drivers and Y takes the -rc fixes and you do the rest) and we simply see how it works out. If it works out reasonably we have our succession and also a distributed maintainer model. If it doesn't work out we try something else next year. James