From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Matthew Hall <mhall@mhcomputing.net>
Subject: Re: Proposal for a new Committer model
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2016 22:00:27 -0800
Message-ID: <20161118060027.GA17595@mhcomputing.net>
References: <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE202661F22@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: "dev@dpdk.org" <dev@dpdk.org>, "moving@dpdk.org" <moving@dpdk.org>
To: "Mcnamara, John" <john.mcnamara@intel.com>
Return-path: <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B27915DBBA3421428155699D51E4CFE202661F22@IRSMSX103.ger.corp.intel.com>
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org
Sender: "dev" <dev-bounces@dpdk.org>

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 09:20:50AM +0000, Mcnamara, John wrote:
> One committer to master represents a single point of failure and at times can be inefficient.

I have a lot more issues because of slow or inconclusive review of patches 
than I do because of committers. Often times they just get rejected in 
Patchwork with no feedback. Or it takes forever to get reviews.

I don't think the committer is the right place to point to the single point of 
failure.

Matthew.