From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [dpdk-techboard] decision process and DPDK scope Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:23:11 +0100 Message-ID: <2387427.oe7MCbVTs3@xps13> References: <1667864.GflPPoyiWF@xps13> <20170209144905.6dc0db5f@xeon-e3> <20170210155439.GA365948@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: Stephen Hemminger , dev@dpdk.org, techboard@dpdk.org To: Bruce Richardson Return-path: Received: from mail-wm0-f52.google.com (mail-wm0-f52.google.com [74.125.82.52]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 022C9DE0 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 18:23:12 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f52.google.com with SMTP id v186so116334513wmd.0 for ; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 09:23:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20170210155439.GA365948@bricha3-MOBL3.ger.corp.intel.com> List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" 2017-02-10 15:54, Bruce Richardson: > On Thu, Feb 09, 2017 at 02:49:05PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Thu, 9 Feb 2017 12:20:47 +0000 > > Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > > > > I think we can use this case to avoid seeing it again in the future. > > > > I suggest that the technical board should check whether every new proposed > > > > features are explained, discussed and approved enough in the community. > > > > If needed, the technical board meeting minutes will give some lights to > > > > the threads which require more attention. > > > > Before adding a new library or adding a major API, there should be > > > > some strong reviews which include discussing the DPDK scope. > > > > > > > > > > The bigger question here is the default position of the DPDK community - > > > default accept, or default reject. Your statements above all are very > > > much keeping in the style of default reject i.e. every patch or change > > > suggested is assumed to be unfit for acceptance unless reviewed in > > > detail to prove beyond doubt otherwise. > > > > > > I believe that we should change this default position, as I think that > > > reject by default is hurting the community and will continue to do so. It is hurting because there is no clear explanation of the process. > > > NOTE: I am not suggesting that we allow all code in with zero review, > > > but I am suggesting that if something has been reviewed and acked by at > > > least one reviewer it should be automatically accepted unless some other > > > reviewed objects in a TIMELY manner. I see an issue with "automatic" decision after a period of time. It puts a lot of pressure on the community to check everything. I agree we should state this kind of default. But we should add two exceptions: - new API or API change - a maintainer explicitly ask for a techboard discussion > > I agree but in a more assertive manner. The maintainer should be the default > > and active reviewer of all submissions. Like other projects the maintainers job > > is to review and accept (or provide constructive feedback). Otherwise the > > job could just by done by some manager. > > > > But recently, I have changed my mind. The current DPDK project model is not > > scaling well. After hearing some of the arguments in favor of a multiple > > committer model (see "Maintainers Don't Scale" ) > > https://kernel-recipes.org/en/2016/talks/maintainers-dont-scale/ > > > > And comments on lwn: > > https://lwn.net/Articles/703005/ > > > Might it be worthwhile to try out having 2 or 3 committers to each tree > and see how it works? From the presentation you link too, the claim is > that moving from 1 to 2 is the hardest, and expanding beyond that > becomes easier. I think the first thing to improve is the decision process. Increasing the number of committers, without agreeing on a clear decision process, would make things worse.