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 3CB79AF8 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 23:44:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ot1-f66.google.com (mail-ot1-f66.google.com [209.85.210.66]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 78447D0 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 23:44:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ot1-f66.google.com with SMTP id n46so22897808otb.9 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:44:57 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154225759358.2499188.15268218778137905050.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <154225761038.2499188.1270468803677883744.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20181115061036.1575223d@silica.lan> <20181115162008.GO3759@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dan Williams Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:44:45 -0800 Message-ID: To: rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Cc: ksummit , linux-nvdimm , Linux Kernel Mailing List , zwisler@kernel.org, mchehab+samsung@kernel.org Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [RFC PATCH 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS: Subsystem Profile List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:37 PM Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:38 AM Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 06:10:36AM -0800, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > Em Thu, 15 Nov 2018 09:03:11 +0100 > > > Geert Uytterhoeven escreveu: > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:06 AM Dan Williams wrote: > > > > > Document the basic policies of the libnvdimm subsystem and provide a > > > > > first example of a Subsystem Profile for others to duplicate and edit. > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Ross Zwisler > > > > > Cc: Vishal Verma > > > > > Cc: Dave Jiang > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/nvdimm/subsystem-profile.rst > > > > > > > > > +Trusted Reviewers > > > > > +----------------- > > > > > +Johannes Thumshirn > > > > > +Toshi Kani > > > > > +Jeff Moyer > > > > > +Robert Elliott > > > > > > > > Don't you want to add email addresses? > > > > Only the first one is listed in MAINTAINERS. > > > > > > IMO, it makes sense to have their e-mails here, in a way that it could > > > easily be parsed by get_maintainers.pl. > > > > I personally think that list of "trusted reviewers" makes more harm than > > good. It creates unneeded negative feelings to those who wanted to be in > > this list, but for any reason they don't. Those reviewers will feel > > "untrusted". > > I'd like to +1 on this concern here. Besides leaving all the other > people demotivated. Yes, that's a valid concern, I overlooked that unfortunate interpretation. > > A small group of trusted reviewers doesn't scale. People will get overloaded. > Or you won't be able to enforce that all patches need to get Reviews. > > Reviews should be coming from everywhere and commiters and maintainers > deciding on what to trust or re-review. > > Also the list is hard to maintain and keep the lists updated. I understand the concern, and as I saw feedback come in I realized there were more people that I would add to that reviewer list for libnvdimm. Stepping back the end goal is to have an initial list of recommended people to follow up with directly to seek a second opinion, or help in cases where a contributor otherwise needs some direction / engagement that they are not readily receiving from the maintainer. Typically someone just lurks on the mailing list for a few weeks to get a feel for who the usual suspects are in the subsystem, but for a new contributor identifying those individuals may be difficult. One of the contributing factors of lack of response to a patchset is that they are sent with the implicit expectation that the maintainer will get to eventually, and typically other people feel content to sit back and watch. If instead a contributor sent a direct mail to a "trusted reviewer" saying, "Hey, Alice, Bob seems busy can you help me out?" that seems more likely to rope in additional review help.