From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tytso@thunk.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B23D4C96
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 13 Sep 2018 02:56:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from imap.thunk.org (imap.thunk.org [74.207.234.97])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A0D5782
	for <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 13 Sep 2018 02:56:12 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 22:56:09 -0400
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter@ffwll.ch>
Message-ID: <20180913025609.GD20595@thunk.org>
References: <CAKMK7uE=FwpPFnvOvuvGBZ0vjh3UMPW=zgSk1dmiyCLQPPuZvg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+55aFyCdGstDu2u11veh3YxabpQrfaPEzuZB2x=eRXpw89prA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKMK7uF+RyTVxvg0HyzponA-orENm-n0GiDXr6EDTGSkOFp+FQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAKMK7uF+RyTVxvg0HyzponA-orENm-n0GiDXr6EDTGSkOFp+FQ@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: ksummit <ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER SUMMIT] community
 management/subsystem governance
List-Id: <ksummit-discuss.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/>
List-Post: <mailto:ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ksummit-discuss>,
	<mailto:ksummit-discuss-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>

On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 05:31:25PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> 
> Yup, fully agreed. We don't need another overview over group
> maintainer ship. Also I don't think an update from arm-soc/tip or drm
> is interesting either. I think only if there's a new group/subsystem
> trying this out, with all the nitty-gritty details of "this totally
> blew up in our faces" and "this worked shockingly well" and "here we
> need to improve still, we're not happy" is what I'm looking for.
> Without those details there's nothing really to learn, beyond just
> rehashing one of the old discussions. I guess I should have put more
> emphasis on _new_ experiments :-)
> 
> And if nothing changed, no new groups I think think we should table
> this right away.

I wonder if this is something that would be better done at the Kernel
Summit (e.g., in Vancouver), as a discussion session.  It's important
to remember that Maintainer's Summit has (by design) a small number of
attendees.  If the goal is to compare notes about various experiments,
it's likely there will be many kernel developers present in Vancouver.
After all, getting input from just "Maintainers" but all developers
participating in development process would be valuable.

						- Ted