[Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[James Bottomley]

Since our fearless leader apparently can't even remember the dates of
the only conference he goes to, perhaps now might be a good time to
talk about how we'd run an orderly succession process (purely
theoretically, of course ...)

I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the way
to elect a new leader, but others probably have different ideas.

James

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Daniel Vetter]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:44 PM, James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> Since our fearless leader apparently can't even remember the dates of
> the only conference he goes to, perhaps now might be a good time to
> talk about how we'd run an orderly succession process (purely
> theoretically, of course ...)
>
> I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the way
> to elect a new leader, but others probably have different ideas.

Why I single leader?

This group maintainer ship thing ... it  works.
-Daniel
-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[James Bottomley]

On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 21:47 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:44 PM, James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> > Since our fearless leader apparently can't even remember the dates
> > of
> > the only conference he goes to, perhaps now might be a good time to
> > talk about how we'd run an orderly succession process (purely
> > theoretically, of course ...)
> > 
> > I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the
> > way
> > to elect a new leader, but others probably have different ideas.
> 
> Why I single leader?
> 
> This group maintainer ship thing ... it  works.

Well, lets talk about that.  I like the single leader model because it
doesn't lead to the cabal cult like the group maintainer model does in
BSD.  However, if we have a plan that can avoid that, I think it would
be a reasonable thing to try out.

I also note that group maintainership seems only to work for you in
DRM; most of the other subsystems seem to have single leader
hierarchical maintainership.

James

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:44 PM James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the way
> to elect a new leader, but others probably have different ideas.

I *literally* suggested that this is why it would be best to do it
without me in Vancouver.

Because what better opportunity for a palace coup than when the old
dictator is off gallivanting? It's very traditional.

              Linus

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:51 PM James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 21:47 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:44 PM, James Bottomley
> > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> > > Since our fearless leader apparently can't even remember the dates
> > > of
> > > the only conference he goes to, perhaps now might be a good time to
> > > talk about how we'd run an orderly succession process (purely
> > > theoretically, of course ...)
> > >
> > > I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the
> > > way
> > > to elect a new leader, but others probably have different ideas.
> >
> > Why I single leader?
> >
> > This group maintainer ship thing ... it  works.
>
> Well, lets talk about that.  I like the single leader model because it
> doesn't lead to the cabal cult like the group maintainer model does in
> BSD.  However, if we have a plan that can avoid that, I think it would
> be a reasonable thing to try out.
>
> I also note that group maintainership seems only to work for you in
> DRM; most of the other subsystems seem to have single leader
> hierarchical maintainership.

Arm-soc has a triumvirate doing round-robin releases/pull-requests.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:51 PM James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 21:47 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:44 PM, James Bottomley
>> > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>> > > Since our fearless leader apparently can't even remember the dates
>> > > of
>> > > the only conference he goes to, perhaps now might be a good time to
>> > > talk about how we'd run an orderly succession process (purely
>> > > theoretically, of course ...)
>> > >
>> > > I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the
>> > > way
>> > > to elect a new leader, but others probably have different ideas.
>> >
>> > Why I single leader?
>> >
>> > This group maintainer ship thing ... it  works.
>>
>> Well, lets talk about that.  I like the single leader model because it
>> doesn't lead to the cabal cult like the group maintainer model does in
>> BSD.  However, if we have a plan that can avoid that, I think it would
>> be a reasonable thing to try out.

Group maintainership can be dysfunctional, just like single
maintainers can be. And pockets of cabals exist already in some areas.

Worst case is probably selecting a single maintainer that turns out to
be a bad choice, and be stuck. With groups, it's easier to adjust if
needed.

I'd argue that having a group would be substantially more robust,
especially since the pool of people are likely to come from industry
and not just LF. We're all pretty good at leaving company politics and
influence out of our community work, but it's still desirable to have
a bit of balance in the higher maintainer roles.

>> I also note that group maintainership seems only to work for you in
>> DRM; most of the other subsystems seem to have single leader
>> hierarchical maintainership.
>
> Arm-soc has a triumvirate doing round-robin releases/pull-requests.

x86 is spread among several people as well (in fact, we originally
based arm-soc on their model but over time the practical
implementation has drifted somewhat).


-Olof

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>
> I'd argue that having a group would be substantially more robust,
> especially since the pool of people are likely to come from industry
> and not just LF. We're all pretty good at leaving company politics and
> influence out of our community work, but it's still desirable to have
> a bit of balance in the higher maintainer roles.

I think the groups mostly have worked well, but I don't believe in
that "balance" notion at all.

Because I think *the* most important issue would be that the group
maintainers trust each other, not that they come from different areas
in industry.

Of course, outside people would have to trust that group too, but
trust within the group is I think the most important part by far.

                    Linus

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[James Bottomley]

On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 12:57 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 12:44 PM James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> > 
> > I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the
> > way to elect a new leader, but others probably have different
> > ideas.
> 
> I *literally* suggested that this is why it would be best to do it
> without me in Vancouver.
> 
> Because what better opportunity for a palace coup than when the old
> dictator is off gallivanting? It's very traditional.

It's happened occasionally, but it's not very traditional.  Usually
when people do a palace coup replacement, the tumbrels are waiting
outside to cart the old dictator off to their sticky end.  You can't
afford to leave them around, you see: they can pop up later and spoil
the new republic inordinately.

So, I think if we're running a sanctioned palace coup, we really need
you around to anoint the successor(s).

James

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:35 PM Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'd argue that having a group would be substantially more robust,
>> especially since the pool of people are likely to come from industry
>> and not just LF. We're all pretty good at leaving company politics and
>> influence out of our community work, but it's still desirable to have
>> a bit of balance in the higher maintainer roles.
>
> I think the groups mostly have worked well, but I don't believe in
> that "balance" notion at all.
>
> Because I think *the* most important issue would be that the group
> maintainers trust each other, not that they come from different areas
> in industry.
>
> Of course, outside people would have to trust that group too, but
> trust within the group is I think the most important part by far.

Yeah, I was mostly thinking of outside optics than intra-group dynamics.

For arm-soc it was something that was explicitly considered, Linaro
was just then spinning up and it was important to not give the
impression that companies had to join Linaro to get attention and
equal treatment from the maintainers (and, of course, couldn't apply
pressure to maintainers through membership).

And on a day to day basis it works well. We rarely hit cases where we
send conflicting or contradicting feedback or requests, and if we do,
the later-arriving party either yields or we hash it out quickly. It's
mostly been the case of the former. And yes, trust is obviously key
within the group, no matter background/employment/representation.


-Olof

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:51 PM James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> It's happened occasionally, but it's not very traditional.  Usually
> when people do a palace coup replacement, the tumbrels are waiting
> outside to cart the old dictator off to their sticky end.

This has taken a dark turn.

I do want to point out that I brought the question up last year on the
spot. I didn't get any reaction then. I was thinking me not being
around would have been more conducive to discussion. But whatever.

             Linus

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[James Bottomley]

On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 13:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:51 PM James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> > 
> > It's happened occasionally, but it's not very traditional.  Usually
> > when people do a palace coup replacement, the tumbrels are waiting
> > outside to cart the old dictator off to their sticky end.
> 
> This has taken a dark turn.

You were the one who mentioned dictators ... I was perfectly happy with
the bus.

> I do want to point out that I brought the question up last year on
> the spot. I didn't get any reaction then. I was thinking me not being
> around would have been more conducive to discussion. But whatever.

OK, so we could still have a plebiscite in Vancouver; we have the room
and the time still reserved.  It could propose a succession plan and
just present it to you.  I admit there's precedent; it's how we did the
next TAB chair for instance.

However, I really think for an orderly succession plan, you need to be
part of it rather than having a palace coup which could end up being
really messy and divisive.  I suspect people treated your proposal last
year as more of a joke last year because they didn't think you were
serious.  If you're really serious about doing this, let's try to come
up with the succession process in Edinburgh in October and see if we
can run a Maintainer Summit with the new Leadership in Vancouver in
November.

James

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Jens Axboe]

On 9/6/18 3:13 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 13:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:51 PM James Bottomley
>> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It's happened occasionally, but it's not very traditional.  Usually
>>> when people do a palace coup replacement, the tumbrels are waiting
>>> outside to cart the old dictator off to their sticky end.
>>
>> This has taken a dark turn.
> 
> You were the one who mentioned dictators ... I was perfectly happy with
> the bus.
> 
>> I do want to point out that I brought the question up last year on
>> the spot. I didn't get any reaction then. I was thinking me not being
>> around would have been more conducive to discussion. But whatever.
> 
> OK, so we could still have a plebiscite in Vancouver; we have the room
> and the time still reserved.  It could propose a succession plan and
> just present it to you.  I admit there's precedent; it's how we did the
> next TAB chair for instance.
> 
> However, I really think for an orderly succession plan, you need to be
> part of it rather than having a palace coup which could end up being
> really messy and divisive.  I suspect people treated your proposal last
> year as more of a joke last year because they didn't think you were
> serious.  If you're really serious about doing this, let's try to come
> up with the succession process in Edinburgh in October and see if we
> can run a Maintainer Summit with the new Leadership in Vancouver in
> November.

This seems rather hasty to me, I think it would be prudent to establish
a timeline (on both sides?). Unless you are really proposing a coup?

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[John W. Linville]

On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:20:08PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 9/6/18 3:13 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 13:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:51 PM James Bottomley
> >> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> It's happened occasionally, but it's not very traditional.  Usually
> >>> when people do a palace coup replacement, the tumbrels are waiting
> >>> outside to cart the old dictator off to their sticky end.
> >>
> >> This has taken a dark turn.
> > 
> > You were the one who mentioned dictators ... I was perfectly happy with
> > the bus.
> > 
> >> I do want to point out that I brought the question up last year on
> >> the spot. I didn't get any reaction then. I was thinking me not being
> >> around would have been more conducive to discussion. But whatever.
> > 
> > OK, so we could still have a plebiscite in Vancouver; we have the room
> > and the time still reserved.  It could propose a succession plan and
> > just present it to you.  I admit there's precedent; it's how we did the
> > next TAB chair for instance.
> > 
> > However, I really think for an orderly succession plan, you need to be
> > part of it rather than having a palace coup which could end up being
> > really messy and divisive.  I suspect people treated your proposal last
> > year as more of a joke last year because they didn't think you were
> > serious.  If you're really serious about doing this, let's try to come
> > up with the succession process in Edinburgh in October and see if we
> > can run a Maintainer Summit with the new Leadership in Vancouver in
> > November.
> 
> This seems rather hasty to me, I think it would be prudent to establish
> a timeline (on both sides?). Unless you are really proposing a coup?

FWIW, it took me months to coordinate an orderly withdraw just
from the wireless maintainership. If this is a serious discussion,
then I don't think it's too early to start planning for the coming
changes. Just the thought of finding enough fools to backfill Linus
makes me shudder...

John
-- 
John W. Linville		Someday the world will need a hero, and you
linville@tuxdriver.com			might be all we have.  Be ready.

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Jens Axboe]

On 9/6/18 3:28 PM, John W. Linville wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2018 at 03:20:08PM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 9/6/18 3:13 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 13:59 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:51 PM James Bottomley
>>>> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It's happened occasionally, but it's not very traditional.  Usually
>>>>> when people do a palace coup replacement, the tumbrels are waiting
>>>>> outside to cart the old dictator off to their sticky end.
>>>>
>>>> This has taken a dark turn.
>>>
>>> You were the one who mentioned dictators ... I was perfectly happy with
>>> the bus.
>>>
>>>> I do want to point out that I brought the question up last year on
>>>> the spot. I didn't get any reaction then. I was thinking me not being
>>>> around would have been more conducive to discussion. But whatever.
>>>
>>> OK, so we could still have a plebiscite in Vancouver; we have the room
>>> and the time still reserved.  It could propose a succession plan and
>>> just present it to you.  I admit there's precedent; it's how we did the
>>> next TAB chair for instance.
>>>
>>> However, I really think for an orderly succession plan, you need to be
>>> part of it rather than having a palace coup which could end up being
>>> really messy and divisive.  I suspect people treated your proposal last
>>> year as more of a joke last year because they didn't think you were
>>> serious.  If you're really serious about doing this, let's try to come
>>> up with the succession process in Edinburgh in October and see if we
>>> can run a Maintainer Summit with the new Leadership in Vancouver in
>>> November.
>>
>> This seems rather hasty to me, I think it would be prudent to establish
>> a timeline (on both sides?). Unless you are really proposing a coup?
> 
> FWIW, it took me months to coordinate an orderly withdraw just
> from the wireless maintainership. If this is a serious discussion,
> then I don't think it's too early to start planning for the coming
> changes. Just the thought of finding enough fools to backfill Linus
> makes me shudder...

I agree it'll take a long time to do this properly, the hastiness
remark was mostly in relation to the statement talking about a
new leadership being in place the month after.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Olof Johansson]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:59 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:51 PM James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>>
>> It's happened occasionally, but it's not very traditional.  Usually
>> when people do a palace coup replacement, the tumbrels are waiting
>> outside to cart the old dictator off to their sticky end.
>
> This has taken a dark turn.
>
> I do want to point out that I brought the question up last year on the
> spot. I didn't get any reaction then. I was thinking me not being
> around would have been more conducive to discussion. But whatever.

Assuming here that the discussion is NOT about a coup-style immediate
takeover, but instead either:
1) Start sharing more work so that you can scale back sometimes, go
dive without worrying about internet connectivity etc.
or:
2) Prepare for disaster.

I know you have yourself said you don't care what happens in case of
(2) since you won't be around, but I think the best approach is to get
there through (1), if possible.

My suggestion if you want this: Have someone start out doing some of
the simpler mechanics, starting with merging non-controversial fixes
during non-merge window for a cycle or two, and take it from there. It
could even initially be a rotation where a few people try it out for a
bit of time. Some might realize they hate it and should be able to
change their minds without losing face.

I think it was two years ago you proposed having someone else
substitute for a bit, but I don't know if anyone ever volunteered?

You will probably need to approach some of the people you'd trust
enough to do it. Some might find it too intimidating, mistakes are
going to be fairly visible, and I doubt too many will be excited to
volunteer and be turned down, in particular if due to lack of trust.

I think all of that will be easier than finding a new solo maintainer
available at the strike of disaster -- but even if that's what the
goal is, having said person spin up in the same way (i.e. a group of
two for now), seems like the most robust approach.


-Olof

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:13 PM James Bottomley
<James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>
> However, I really think for an orderly succession plan, you need to be
> part of it rather than having a palace coup which could end up being
> really messy and divisive.  I suspect people treated your proposal last
> year as more of a joke last year because they didn't think you were
> serious.  If you're really serious about doing this, let's try to come
> up with the succession process in Edinburgh in October and see if we
> can run a Maintainer Summit with the new Leadership in Vancouver in
> November.

So I do want to make it clear that it's not like I am all that serious
about it, because I'm perfectly happy to continue to do what I've been
doing for the past almost three decades.

It's not like *I* care about the bus scenario, pretty much by definition.

Honestly, I think the real issue is when *others* have serious and
practical proposals.

In many ways I think that is the real issue: people who feel like
there would be advantages to new models.

The advantages could range from just the "I'd really prefer to work
with somebody else" to more of a "look, Linus isn't getting any
younger, so to make for a smooth transition we should start moving
towards xyz, because then in <N >years we'll be ready".

Regardless, I don't think _my_ opinions matter all that much on this,
and I honestly think some people might be more willing to speak their
mind without me in the room.

And guys, it's not like my ego is all that fragile.  I think people do
know that.  So the only thing I *do* want to be serious about is that
if people actually come up with something that they honestly agree is
better, you don't need to worry about me throwing some hissy-fit, and
"take my ball and go home".

That said, I think we all might have some very real doubts about how
practical it's going to be, and getting people to actually agree on
anything.

What I do *not* want to see is some random flailing discussion while
we're all in the same room. Because I can think of more productive
things to do in Edinburgh, and most of them involve drinking.

So I think people should have some real suggestions before-hand, not
some "let's leave it to an open discussion for the summit itself".

                  Linus

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[David Woodhouse]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 316 bytes --]

On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 14:41 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> What I do *not* want to see is some random flailing discussion while
> we're all in the same room. Because I can think of more productive
> things to do in Edinburgh, and most of them involve drinking.


There are some fun hills to climb nearby too...

[-- Attachment #2: smime.p7s --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 5213 bytes --]

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Linus Torvalds]

On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 3:12 PM David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> There are some fun hills to climb nearby too...

Y'all don't need a dictator, you need a baby-sitter.

               Linus

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[James Bottomley]

On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 14:41 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 2:13 PM James Bottomley
> <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
> > 
> > However, I really think for an orderly succession plan, you need to
> > be part of it rather than having a palace coup which could end up
> > being really messy and divisive.  I suspect people treated your
> > proposal last year as more of a joke last year because they didn't
> > think you were serious.  If you're really serious about doing this,
> > let's try to come up with the succession process in Edinburgh in
> > October and see if we can run a Maintainer Summit with the new
> > Leadership in Vancouver in November.
> 
> So I do want to make it clear that it's not like I am all that
> serious about it, because I'm perfectly happy to continue to do what
> I've been doing for the past almost three decades.
> 
> It's not like *I* care about the bus scenario, pretty much by
> definition.
> 
> Honestly, I think the real issue is when *others* have serious and
> practical proposals.
> 
> In many ways I think that is the real issue: people who feel like
> there would be advantages to new models.
> 
> The advantages could range from just the "I'd really prefer to work
> with somebody else" to more of a "look, Linus isn't getting any
> younger, so to make for a smooth transition we should start moving
> towards xyz, because then in <N >years we'll be ready".
> 
> Regardless, I don't think _my_ opinions matter all that much on this,
> and I honestly think some people might be more willing to speak their
> mind without me in the room.
> 
> And guys, it's not like my ego is all that fragile.  I think people
> do know that.  So the only thing I *do* want to be serious about is
> that if people actually come up with something that they honestly
> agree is better, you don't need to worry about me throwing some
> hissy-fit, and "take my ball and go home".
> 
> That said, I think we all might have some very real doubts about how
> practical it's going to be, and getting people to actually agree on
> anything.
> 
> What I do *not* want to see is some random flailing discussion while
> we're all in the same room. Because I can think of more productive
> things to do in Edinburgh, and most of them involve drinking.
> 
> So I think people should have some real suggestions before-hand, not
> some "let's leave it to an open discussion for the summit itself".

OK, so here's a practical suggestion: let's propose two people to have
ongoing push rights to your kernel tree from a vote of the maintainer
summit invitees in Edinburgh.  You establish the day to day ground
rules (say X takes the drivers and Y takes the -rc fixes and you do the
rest) and we simply see how it works out.  If it works out reasonably
we have our succession and also a distributed maintainer model.  If it
doesn't work out we try something else next year.

James

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Mauro Carvalho Chehab]

Em Thu, 06 Sep 2018 12:51:15 -0700
James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> escreveu:

> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 21:47 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:44 PM, James Bottomley
> > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:  
> > > Since our fearless leader apparently can't even remember the dates
> > > of
> > > the only conference he goes to, perhaps now might be a good time to
> > > talk about how we'd run an orderly succession process (purely
> > > theoretically, of course ...)
> > > 
> > > I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the
> > > way
> > > to elect a new leader, but others probably have different ideas.  
> > 
> > Why I single leader?
> > 
> > This group maintainer ship thing ... it  works.  
> 
> I also note that group maintainership seems only to work for you in
> DRM; most of the other subsystems seem to have single leader
> hierarchical maintainership.

If we're seriously thinking on have a plan for maintainership
replacement with a group, we need first to answer:

	Q: How many Kernel developers does it take to replace Linus?

That's said, I doubt that the DRM model would work outside DRM
subsystem: too many people with commit rights can be hard, specially
if they all can touch the core. Btw, we tried a similar model in
the past on media (by the time we were using Mercurial, about
10 years ago): all core developers had commit rights. It worked
smoothly for years, until one of the developers decided
to commit a very intrusive patch touching all drivers at the
subsystem and stepping on everyone else feet. Handling it was
really painful. If our official model would be a group 
maintainership, it would probably take months for us to put the
tree on a sane state. I ended by using my maintainership status
to revert the patch, returning the tree to a sane state and allowing
the others to keep sending patches. Yet, it took months, even
years for us to recover from the disaster. Also, due to the
heated discussions, we end by losing several developers due
to that.

A triumvirate like x86 and arm might work, but I suspect that it
would be easier to start with a more hierarchical model, like
for example having one (sub-)maintainer for arch, another
one for core and a third one for drivers.

Also, if we want to consider the bus scenario and other disaster
threats, it could be worth to consider having them geographically 
distributed (if possible even on different Countries).

Thanks,
Mauro

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Also, if we want to consider the bus scenario and other disaster
> threats, it could be worth to consider having them geographically 
> distributed (if possible even on different Countries).

And consequently forbid them to ever meet at the same place ....

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Daniel Vetter]

On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
<mchehab+samsung@kernel.org> wrote:
> Em Thu, 06 Sep 2018 12:51:15 -0700
> James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com> escreveu:
>
>> On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 21:47 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> > On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:44 PM, James Bottomley
>> > <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com> wrote:
>> > > Since our fearless leader apparently can't even remember the dates
>> > > of
>> > > the only conference he goes to, perhaps now might be a good time to
>> > > talk about how we'd run an orderly succession process (purely
>> > > theoretically, of course ...)
>> > >
>> > > I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the
>> > > way
>> > > to elect a new leader, but others probably have different ideas.
>> >
>> > Why I single leader?
>> >
>> > This group maintainer ship thing ... it  works.
>>
>> I also note that group maintainership seems only to work for you in
>> DRM; most of the other subsystems seem to have single leader
>> hierarchical maintainership.
>
> If we're seriously thinking on have a plan for maintainership
> replacement with a group, we need first to answer:
>
>         Q: How many Kernel developers does it take to replace Linus?
>
> That's said, I doubt that the DRM model would work outside DRM
> subsystem: too many people with commit rights can be hard, specially
> if they all can touch the core. Btw, we tried a similar model in
> the past on media (by the time we were using Mercurial, about
> 10 years ago): all core developers had commit rights. It worked
> smoothly for years, until one of the developers decided
> to commit a very intrusive patch touching all drivers at the
> subsystem and stepping on everyone else feet. Handling it was
> really painful. If our official model would be a group
> maintainership, it would probably take months for us to put the
> tree on a sane state. I ended by using my maintainership status
> to revert the patch, returning the tree to a sane state and allowing
> the others to keep sending patches. Yet, it took months, even
> years for us to recover from the disaster. Also, due to the
> heated discussions, we end by losing several developers due
> to that.

I'm not advocating for a committer model at the top level, but it
would be awesome if people bothered to look at the talks and blogs
we've done about what we're actually doing with commit rights, instead
of making assumptions. We don't just throw out commit rights like hot
candy, since that indeed is bound to fail. Instead:

- We have clearly documented merge criteria, and as much of that as
possible enforced using tooling.
- One of those is mandatory review, no one is allowed to do anything solo.
- We have massive CI, available to all contributors automatically -
that gives us mandatory in-depth testing way before committing is even
on the table.
- And finally we have a CoC to just ban people who don't get it and
cant work together in a group
- a bunch of smaller things all over to make it fit together

I know that the commit right thing is very radical by kernel
standards. But outside of the kernel, "how to make commit rights work"
is largely a solved problem. Of course if you ignore that trove of
experience from other open source projects, then you're bound to
repeat all the fail, no surprises.

Apologies for the interlude, back to the topic (which is apparently
... throwing Linus under the bus?!?).
-Daniel

> A triumvirate like x86 and arm might work, but I suspect that it
> would be easier to start with a more hierarchical model, like
> for example having one (sub-)maintainer for arch, another
> one for core and a third one for drivers.
>
> Also, if we want to consider the bus scenario and other disaster
> threats, it could be worth to consider having them geographically
> distributed (if possible even on different Countries).
>
> Thanks,
> Mauro



-- 
Daniel Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
+41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Laurent Pinchart]

Hi Mauro,

On Saturday, 8 September 2018 13:47:08 EEST Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Thu, 06 Sep 2018 12:51:15 -0700 James Bottomley escreveu:
> > On Thu, 2018-09-06 at 21:47 +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> >> On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 9:44 PM, James Bottomley wrote:
> >>> Since our fearless leader apparently can't even remember the dates
> >>> of the only conference he goes to, perhaps now might be a good time to
> >>> talk about how we'd run an orderly succession process (purely
> >>> theoretically, of course ...)
> >>> 
> >>> I think a vote amongst the Maintainer Summit attendees might be the
> >>> way to elect a new leader, but others probably have different ideas.
> >> 
> >> Why I single leader?
> >> 
> >> This group maintainer ship thing ... it  works.
> > 
> > I also note that group maintainership seems only to work for you in
> > DRM; most of the other subsystems seem to have single leader
> > hierarchical maintainership.
> 
> If we're seriously thinking on have a plan for maintainership
> replacement with a group, we need first to answer:
> 
> 	Q: How many Kernel developers does it take to replace Linus?
> 
> That's said, I doubt that the DRM model would work outside DRM
> subsystem: too many people with commit rights can be hard, specially
> if they all can touch the core.

Sorry, I can't agree here. I see no reason why the DRM model couldn't be used 
by other subsystems. It's not the panacea, it will certainly not apply as-is 
to any and every project without considerations of local peculiarities, but 
there's also no reason why it would work well (or at least well enough, as I 
have my doubts about a few aspects of the current DRM multi-committers model) 
for DRM only and nothing else.

Ruling a multi-committers model out without seriously considering it first 
seems to me the sign of a power struggle (and yes, advocating such a model is 
also the sign of a power struggle to some extent). That's unfortunately 
nothing new in the kernel and open-source in general.

When it comes to top-level maintenance I certainly would consider a proposal 
for a 20+ committers model with a high level of worry, but a group 
maintainership model should be at least considered in my opinion.

> Btw, we tried a similar model in the past on media (by the time we were
> using Mercurial, about 10 years ago): all core developers had commit rights.

That's not what DRM does. Not all developers have commit rights, trust 
relationships have to be built first, and commit rights come with an 
expectation of responsible behaviour. Mistakes happen, especially with new 
committers who are not familiar enough with the system, but tooling and 
official maintainers taking the blame and cleaning things help keeping the 
problems under control. Commit rights work quite well as an incentive for 
committers to not screw up, and they can be taken back in case of serious 
problems.

> It worked smoothly for years, until one of the developers decided to commit
> a very intrusive patch touching all drivers at the subsystem and stepping on
> everyone else feet.

That seem to me like a sign of issues in the community that were not addressed 
and left to rot, until something bad enough happened.

> Handling it was really painful. If our official model would be a group
> maintainership, it would probably take months for us to put the tree on a
> sane state.

Why so ? All it takes is one person to commit a revert (or even rebase if 
needed), most likely after discussing the problem with co-maintainers.

> I ended by using my maintainership status to revert the patch, returning the
> tree to a sane state and allowing the others to keep sending patches. Yet,
> it took months, even years for us to recover from the disaster. Also, due to
> the heated discussions, we end by losing several developers due to that.

That would happen the same way without a multi-committers model. Disagreements 
can lead to people leaving the project when no acceptable solution can be 
found.

> A triumvirate like x86 and arm might work, but I suspect that it would be
> easier to start with a more hierarchical model, like for example having one
> (sub-)maintainer for arch, another one for core and a third one for drivers.
> 
> Also, if we want to consider the bus scenario and other disaster threats, it
> could be worth to consider having them geographically distributed (if
> possible even on different Countries).

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart

Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [MAINTAINER TOPIC] Succession Planning: Is It time to Throw Linus Under a Bus?

[Jiri Kosina]

On Sat, 8 Sep 2018, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:

> 	Q: How many Kernel developers does it take to replace Linus?

Somebody please remind me, what problem exactly are we trying to solve 
here, again? :)

I honestly believe this all started as a joke from James (the mixed up 
conferences etc. of course providing excellent grounds for such a joke :) 
), but now that this keeps going on, I think the problem that is actually 
being solved (and what would be the properties of expected 
outcome/solution) should be formulated again :)

Linus explicitly stated that he's willing to go on merging, and we don't 
have any "bus factor" plans for other critical people either anyway.

So if this "how do we generally deal with all the buses out there?", so be 
it, but it really should be clearly stated I think :)

Thanks,

-- 
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs