From: Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com> To: "Darrick J. Wong" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, xfs <email@example.com>, Eric Sandeen <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Eryu Guan <email@example.com> Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] FS Maintainers Don't Scale Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2020 14:03:33 -0800 Message-ID: <20200207220333.GI8731@bombadil.infradead.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200131052520.GC6869@magnolia> On Thu, Jan 30, 2020 at 09:25:20PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > It turns out that this system doesn't scale very well either. Even with > three maintainers sharing access to the git trees and working together > to get reviews done, mailing list traffic has been trending upwards for > years, and we still can't keep up. I fear that many maintainers are > burning out. For XFS, the biggest pain point (AFAICT) is not assembly and > testing of the git trees, but keeping up with the mail and the reviews. I think the LSFMMBPF conference is part of the problem. With the best of intentions, we have set up a system which serves to keep all but the most dedicated from having a voice at the premier conference for filesystems, memory management, storage (and now networking). It wasn't intended to be that way, but that's what has happened, and it isn't serving us well as a result. Three anecdotes. First, look at Jason's mail from earlier today: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20200207194620.GG8731@bombadil.infradead.org/T/#t There are 11 people on that list, plus Jason, plus three more than I recommended. That's 15, just for that one topic. I think maybe half of those people will get an invite anyway, but adding on an extra 5-10 people for (what I think is) a critically important topic at the very nexus of storage, filesystems, memory management, networking and graphics is almost certainly out of bounds for the scale of the current conference. Second, I've had Outreachy students who have made meaningful contributions to the kernel. Part of their bursary is a travel grant to go to a conference and they were excited to come to LSFMM. I've had to tell them "this conference is invite-only for the top maintainers; you can't come". They ended up going to an Open Source Summit conference instead. By excluding the people who are starting out, we are failing to grow our community. I don't think it would have hurt for them to be in the room; they were unlikely to speak, and perhaps they would have gone on to make larger contributions. Third, I hear from people who work on a specific filesystem "Of the twenty or so slots for the FS part of the conference, there are about half a dozen generic filesystem people who'll get an invite, then maybe six filesystems who'll get two slots each, but what we really want to do is get everybody working on this filesystem in a room and go over our particular problem areas". This kills me because LSFMM has been such a critically important part of Linux development for over a decade, but I think at this point it is at least not serving us the way we want it to, and may even be doing more harm than good. I think it needs to change, and more people need to be welcomed to the conference. Maybe it needs to not be invite-only. Maybe it can stay invite-only, but be twice as large. Maybe everybody who's coming needs to front $100 to put towards the costs of a larger meeting space with more rooms. Not achievable for this year, I'm sure, but if we start talking now maybe we can have a better conference in 2021.
next prev parent reply index Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-01-31 5:25 Darrick J. Wong 2020-01-31 7:30 ` [Lsf-pc] " Amir Goldstein 2020-02-01 3:20 ` Allison Collins 2020-02-02 21:46 ` Dave Chinner 2020-02-09 17:12 ` Allison Collins 2020-02-12 0:21 ` NeilBrown 2020-02-12 6:58 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-02-12 22:06 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-02-12 22:19 ` Dan Williams 2020-02-12 22:36 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-02-13 15:11 ` Brian Foster 2020-02-13 15:46 ` Matthew Wilcox 2020-02-16 21:55 ` Dave Chinner 2020-02-19 0:29 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-02-19 1:17 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-02-12 23:39 ` Dave Chinner 2020-02-13 15:19 ` Brian Foster 2020-02-17 0:11 ` Dave Chinner 2020-02-17 15:01 ` Brian Foster 2020-02-12 21:36 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-02-12 22:42 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-02-13 10:21 ` Amir Goldstein 2020-02-07 22:03 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message] 2020-02-12 3:51 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-02-12 22:29 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-02-12 22:21 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-02-13 1:23 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20200207220333.GI8731@bombadil.infradead.org \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Linux-Fsdevel Archive on lore.kernel.org Archives are clonable: git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/0 linux-fsdevel/git/0.git # If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may # initialize and index your mirror using the following commands: public-inbox-init -V2 linux-fsdevel linux-fsdevel/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel \ email@example.com public-inbox-index linux-fsdevel Example config snippet for mirrors Newsgroup available over NNTP: nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git