From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F5DC79C8 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:05:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9614D1F381; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:05:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1692695135; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=esTm+gNxfKja+OBXRhReam2Fh4p27Bp2mu2ER9sOPkE=; b=Mtmr19fHsfItiGqHOo70WuhiDtoDlpFVEf3tCoQxsOJNfxN1ZIytFsf6mryvEJxKN+Tbn7 OHLrO3wxUDRH+OS0XjIziEgtVXCqUn5D2FeQipX3l8nlqovlRRxot+CaJRCq8hs8vEINa3 s+xIhDis4QDnM1uHAKrryPCpBQbXpMM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1692695135; h=from:from:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc: mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=esTm+gNxfKja+OBXRhReam2Fh4p27Bp2mu2ER9sOPkE=; b=hFiHWIFH/jWBn6+Rl9f2rCrmnpqerjqnHl/g2nNqin1KQZxt5oL472KND+wSlTXY68ktsH 9Bll/77RrVdTTiAg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F2D67132B9; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:05:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id YSomNF165GQufAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:05:33 +0000 Message-ID: <30c87cc1-4b9b-6f8f-361c-aa814e750ee7@suse.de> Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:05:32 +0200 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Maintainer burnout Content-Language: en-US To: Jiri Kosina , Laurent Pinchart Cc: Leon Romanovsky , Linus Torvalds , Jakub Kicinski , Linus Walleij , Alexei Starovoitov , Andrew Lunn , Luis Chamberlain , Josef Bacik , ksummit@lists.linux.dev, Jeff Layton , Song Liu References: <20230816180808.GB2919664@perftesting> <20230817093914.GE21668@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> <44814ed5-7bab-4e56-9ca6-189870f97f41@lunn.ch> <20230817081957.1287b966@kernel.org> <20230818080949.7b17b0d5@kernel.org> <20230819064537.GM22185@unreal> <20230821153549.GJ10135@pendragon.ideasonboard.com> From: Hannes Reinecke In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 8/22/23 09:41, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Mon, 21 Aug 2023, Laurent Pinchart wrote: > >>> It is not clear to me how to get honest answers without fear of >>> loosing an ability to work with that subsystems later. >> >> One straightforward (on paper) option is to guarantee anonymity. When I >> was in university, students were given the opportunity to provide >> feedback on teachers, and the feedback was aggregated into a report that >> didn't contain any personal information that could be used to identify >> the students. > > I understand where you are coming from with this (my university did the > same :) ), but in my view this has a huge potential for not really > reflecting reality. Rationale being: the people who e.g. got their code > rejected will naturally tend to provide negative feedback, even if > rejecting the code was objectively the right thing to do. > > And vice versa. > I do see the advantage, but the main disadvantage here is that it's eroding trust between people. Anonymous review tends to be used for negative feedback, and I am aware that negative feedback to maintainers can have a direct impact on your ability to work in that subsystem (and believe me, I have been in that position. Several times.) But in the end if you want to continue to work in that subsystem you have to come to some sort of arrangement here. I do believe that our maintainers are capable of differentiating between personal and technical issues, so it should be possible to work together despite personal ... (issues? differences?). But none of the above will work if the feedback is anonymously. Maintainer will have a reason for reacting that way, and won't be able to explain themselves properly if they don't know whom to address. Cheers, Hannes -- Dr. Hannes Reinecke Kernel Storage Architect hare@suse.de +49 911 74053 688 SUSE Software Solutions GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg HRB 36809 (AG Nürnberg), Geschäftsführer: Ivo Totev, Andrew Myers, Andrew McDonald, Martje Boudien Moerman