From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from ms.lwn.net (ms.lwn.net [45.79.88.28]) (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 E65DA390CB7 for ; Sun, 9 Aug 2026 19:04:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786302314; cv=none; b=kbUCxZOuai2kFWjr5E/4EcjCMTEY024wTjaosEcsCgChcODS9xLSPlXuhof4XQ3QCRilgkunL8xywvof8QfT8JoWs+XDhLioDszh3Lfym7xeYxSJmLb7ZQT0j3JjvgCNCKqxcxBsUYwiTgp7kOi7hMWxXcw+gO5iDA6lfvleFcY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1786302314; c=relaxed/simple; bh=oJDWN2zcE6MBIrqcfjDGg4L6Yd7OICnY5pAqDVVaGog=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=RytQVgodBWZj8eEqgLxPsdh21UfcbJ+dMDeIqeVkWVFIiNElyvaC4GzzMHLNLVFTTBIeKV6T77pv7Mxyh00LCsbfYWTtykjfUu6WYmWT3i7ThNGprytmk0tyFpZfWJrnOhL/8+o1ac8eo3XHXSfOLgBz14D78haN/WKRDqna9/0= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b=PxexqIj9; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.79.88.28 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=lwn.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lwn.net header.i=@lwn.net header.b="PxexqIj9" DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 ms.lwn.net 00220408BB DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lwn.net; s=20201203; t=1786302274; bh=880bOuFD9t0FVzgQ7jKywhlMYeoPZA6I73X2jc3tsEY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=PxexqIj9DAP9gNzZn14mJTMS7WiaKEMgWQh9cFJKQV1ONhFo4IeliL8MzbB0gVPNk c9I6QQWZQ0RLbWJjaJMDKYUmrq4FCtaaYY+OaupIYhMD9dLdUkBdQo0f+oDV0r4ISk 1fgKcya4mW26bzfTQ0rc6KgmDRyoMPHlEUFDNWMBs5jMB3J4mkQpXT/2cUZuJwY9LD 6TTaC6KD7YqSCE2n1ErqLyoZYds6dlLkLI2cmbsTGDMv6dGu3Qm2XixdSthmzsdslM rLFdkVl8L8Tl2F46Ou6PBUUr2h1uZUEne3fgcMNLnwYIc8V/z0OlK3yyR+bF3DADB1 zovAp0xyNobwA== Received: from localhost (unknown [IPv6:2601:280:4600:27b::1fe]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature ECDSA (prime256v1) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ms.lwn.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 00220408BB; Sun, 9 Aug 2026 19:04:33 +0000 (UTC) From: Jonathan Corbet To: Theodore Tso , Linus Torvalds Cc: Steven Rostedt , James Bottomley , ksummit@lists.linux.dev Subject: Re: [MAINTAINERS SUMMIT] Time to call it quits for the maintainer summit? In-Reply-To: References: <8ae41b73983eee6ba716a61b8701df6522a02baa.camel@HansenPartnership.com> <20260806194153.6443a3ba@gandalf.local.home> Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2026 13:04:33 -0600 Message-ID: <87y0efi08u.fsf@trenco.lwn.net> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: ksummit@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain "Theodore Tso" writes: > As another thought, when we had 100+ people attending the Kernel > Summit, that we would make a *point* of inviting people who had never > attended Kernel Summits before, so we would get new blood attending > the Summit. After we significantly reduced the the size of the > Maintainers Summit to 30, we've stopped doing this as a deliberate > practice. Should we change this? FWIW, in my role in the program committee, I have always tried to think about who we should bring in that hasn't been there before - with a certain amount of success, I hope. We could perhaps do better, maybe with a rule that N% of the seats should be filled by first-time attendees. But we do also have to be sure that the right people are in the room handle the topics under consideration, and that will inevitably include a number of old-timers who have been there before. jon