From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3W8l-0006iE-06 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:01:27 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K3W8i-0006g5-RV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:01:26 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39014 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K3W8i-0006fw-MR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:01:24 -0400 Received: from lizzard.sbs.de ([194.138.37.39]:23882) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K3W8i-0003Kf-ON for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 09:01:25 -0400 Received: from mail1.sbs.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lizzard.sbs.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m53D1Ls5023743 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:01:21 +0200 Received: from [139.25.109.167] (mchn012c.mchp.siemens.de [139.25.109.167] (may be forged)) by mail1.sbs.de (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m53D1L7n011495 for ; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 15:01:21 +0200 Message-ID: <484540A0.6040907@siemens.com> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:01:20 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <193307.64140.qm@web57014.mail.re3.yahoo.com> <18501.3725.422151.796839@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20080603100036.GA25740@shareable.org> <87F66ED9-C3F7-4E2F-BA75-2522B03A1E00@web.de> <48452663.8090506@siemens.com> <18501.6823.92589.960622@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <20080603110346.GC25740@shareable.org> <18501.14842.2805.868161@mariner.uk.xensource.com> In-Reply-To: <18501.14842.2805.868161@mariner.uk.xensource.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: An organizational suggestion Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Ian Jackson wrote: > Jan Kiszka writes ("[Qemu-devel] Re: An organizational suggestion"): >> Another remark: If potential new maintainers should be affiliated with >> any of the, to some degree, competing QEMU "accelerators" Xen and KVM, I >> would be happy to see a public agreement beforehand on the general >> architectural roadmap to cover those two requirement domains (+ the one >> of KQEMU) in the future QEMU design. It would be bad for this project if >> one side overrules the other via the (non-technical) preference of a >> maintainer. Really, that's nothing against Ian personally or against >> Xen/Citrix, the same would apply to KVM/Qumranet! > > Oh, certainly I don't think I would want to be in that position. > > I'm not sure we need an `architectural roadmap' agreed in advance; it > might be better to discuss individual architectural questions one at a > time. I think we don't need this agreement-in-advance if the people who finally decide about commits are neutral due to their affiliation or have proven to be neutral despite of it, both politically as well as technically - someone being deeply involved in one of both approaches /may/ look biased at things, naturally. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT SE 2 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux