From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from perceval.ideasonboard.com (perceval.ideasonboard.com [213.167.242.64]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B902A8479 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:29:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pendragon.ideasonboard.com (213-243-189-158.bb.dnainternet.fi [213.243.189.158]) by perceval.ideasonboard.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 79609DD9; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 13:27:45 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ideasonboard.com; s=mail; t=1692703665; bh=At7EADLN/iRPREmKy6BFRH9SCBqwpJptB9m1nEm4nJY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=E/HNNMDUCJvmH/1Bhw2GfJ0I/6Y41Lh4U4P+/dclpF8/OGzyS3Pp9sX4FR9y++J8U NLBipHnrolH1g5gMsLK2YyA8QII5fzrbbFsGecRkWRg5luYlzHaa7fhgWweyzhTaY1 BKRSXvkSQmNQSSWm+XE3MDeVd0XcOVVTZxG4RtMg= Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 14:29:10 +0300 From: Laurent Pinchart To: Christian Brauner Cc: Jan Kara , Vegard Nossum , Leon Romanovsky , Linus Torvalds , Jakub Kicinski , Linus Walleij , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrew Lunn , Luis Chamberlain , Josef Bacik , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Jeff Layton , Song Liu Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainer burnout Message-ID: <20230822112910.GO10135@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> References: <44814ed5-7bab-4e56-9ca6-189870f97f41@lunn.ch> <20230817081957.1287b966@kernel.org> <20230818080949.7b17b0d5@kernel.org> <20230819064537.GM22185@unreal> <20230822094613.bxtsjlnkhaypoflj@quack3> <20230822-komitee-erreichbar-4dff01dec543@brauner> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230822-komitee-erreichbar-4dff01dec543@brauner> On Tue, Aug 22, 2023 at 12:10:26PM +0200, Christian Brauner wrote: > > I agree it is good to create positive incentives to provide good review. > > But I believe what really makes people do good reviews is the sense of > > common responsibility - you don't want buggy or misdesigned stuff to get > > into the subsystem you work with because that's going to make life harder > > for everybody including you in the future. And I understand the "tragedy of > > Yes, this is a Herculean task and often just results in complaints that > this is unnecessary non-technical pushback. > > > commons" (IOW selfishness) works against this so incentives or > > review-trading or other methods can help but ultimately it is IMHO about > > making people understand and accept this shared responsibility... > > Yes, but in order to encourage and incentivize shared responsibility the > environment must feel sufficiently safe and have a good model of shared > ownership. I think we often still have deficits in both (with > differences between subsystems). The DRM subsystem has done, as far as I can tell, an good job at creating a safe and welcoming environment. Dave and Daniel both indicated they don't have much new to say about the multi-committer model, but maybe they could have lessons to offer on the human side ? This is a topic that may be difficult to discuss publicly though, as it often touches personal stories of abusive behaviour patterns noticed through various communities. -- Regards, Laurent Pinchart