Re: XFS leadership and a new co-maintainer candidate

Ben Myers
2013-11-12T19:30:05Z

Hey,

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 09:32:53AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 02:46:06PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request.
>
> I'll take my back room complain back then, but I still think that this
> is not a useful way to discuss something like this.

Thanks. Tact, Ben, Tact. ;)

> > Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job
> > over here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex
> > is too busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's
> > understandable, but they really don't need to replace me to get their code
> > in. Ouch.
>
> I'd really like to see more diversity in XFS maintainers. The SGI focus has
> defintively been an issue again and again because it seems when one SGI
> person is too busy the others usually are as well. As mentioned before
> there's also been historically a way too high turnover, with the associated
> transition pains.

I think diversity in XFS maintainers is a great idea. How wide of a net are
you suggesting we cast? I guess it sort of depends upon what you feel is the
purpose of the file.

> By making sure we have a broader base for the maintainers, and a more open
> infrastructure we'll all win.

Agreed.

> Note that we already had that sort
> of instructure on kernel.org, but gave up on it because many people
> perceived the effort to re-gain the kernel.org accounts to high.

It is a little difficult to find your way into the web of trust. Not everyone
is in a position to make way to a conference, or to meet people in person. And
even then it can be intimidating to ask for a signature.

> I would also really like to get a clarification on "I know the RH people want
> more control, and that's understandable, but they really don't need to
> replace me to get their code in". What specific people are you worried about
> an what code? What makes "the RH people" less worthy to their code in than
> "the SGI" people.

I'm convinced we're having this discussion for the right reasons, so let's let
that line of discussion die where it is.

Regards,
Ben