From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_MED,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0987C43441 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 23:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85C692086B for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 23:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="YkhGJCbz" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 85C692086B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730425AbeKQJ7X (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2018 04:59:23 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f65.google.com ([209.85.210.65]:40550 "EHLO mail-ot1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726214AbeKQJ7W (ORCPT ); Sat, 17 Nov 2018 04:59:22 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f65.google.com with SMTP id s5so22887025oth.7 for ; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:44:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=q5TAbdRShoOt4pm1oPqDZ3F8NYuj7PYmtdpsXG4GSQU=; b=YkhGJCbzvc4VYrm/qlwIJD9zxCDxG578GWigzLbhvsdxrV9diqEB4UprZQ/RGGhZPu lHuAIS/fiRpYs/sbJCbesEFt1J5dVqx9mwxYwZD4zWvRDIWLu3iQ+z3DhUhJTrfxhVtw Mn9YZs/+TkRfiDzZTT/cW5Cz2vUkgaaWWDSSQ/1+77TdVyC0aObKEvLQdDoV0k1czxZ6 M3G5ND4tiRcRJv9BmMgUUfH0hYs1Z46oI5MBLUFUgSSp7/GuUGr1DeSPcu+9JuV1l16N p3XbO8YMqortKEuOaN+CmVkGRsIKqJiclR710IxN0ufblNsmo8+dRqmI+R9faKrGpte1 6Pvw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=q5TAbdRShoOt4pm1oPqDZ3F8NYuj7PYmtdpsXG4GSQU=; b=SL/M3uWXZvJyrRBwpDD9zVffJZlTQPQRi/4chrVJuMU89J9fZYeyec0wduZJwGttfZ 3TyPFQxyeoVHM/lRnycIgWWtEoh9efe09jSPWntKt/xEr8kg6xsReA9GjU2z37RrWZAE U0k7Gf6abtB+Z/HplHBQ1rYFK1id2RlLDJT0I0iUoOWKdjpjVDDXr9yaKMmgBnjZHrC4 NqZAXx63hoY6yEsG+A0bq44Ojejt134aGiY4QJMTNWsIF5LJmjEHY4RDi4BdvoG6Xd7D SOQyIOBAMKzG29SwddMIyPRN4E5LKV390FY9pstYq435Pk1Dr5OeCg7S+NubECPpqa9S 1vVQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIpOj6frnfdLCSgh9LdXMFcIrurp7CSdNIAaReGBTRCbN0uHe6+ JYCGZzJwK3rkiRyAnYsPq9hUAUeP+Vn04/uLoCrIlA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5dOndf8+u0lWZ5VFZYxf4g/aNZGD1GnYS7WP3KB7MITIe0+k19FMLGFsiLpQhFHweP1XYcG3tS+KJuN0kEf6lA= X-Received: by 2002:a9d:775a:: with SMTP id t26mr7216574otl.32.1542411896452; Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:44:56 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <154225759358.2499188.15268218778137905050.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <154225761038.2499188.1270468803677883744.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com> <20181115061036.1575223d@silica.lan> <20181115162008.GO3759@mtr-leonro.mtl.com> In-Reply-To: From: Dan Williams Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2018 15:44:45 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] [RFC PATCH 3/3] libnvdimm, MAINTAINERS: Subsystem Profile To: rodrigo.vivi@gmail.com Cc: Leon Romanovsky , ksummit , linux-nvdimm , Linux Kernel Mailing List , zwisler@kernel.org, mchehab+samsung@kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:37 PM Rodrigo Vivi wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:38 AM Leon Romanovsky wrote: > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 06:10:36AM -0800, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > > > Em Thu, 15 Nov 2018 09:03:11 +0100 > > > Geert Uytterhoeven escreveu: > > > > > > > Hi Dan, > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:06 AM Dan Williams wrote: > > > > > Document the basic policies of the libnvdimm subsystem and provide a > > > > > first example of a Subsystem Profile for others to duplicate and edit. > > > > > > > > > > Cc: Ross Zwisler > > > > > Cc: Vishal Verma > > > > > Cc: Dave Jiang > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams > > > > > > > > Thanks for your patch! > > > > > > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > > +++ b/Documentation/nvdimm/subsystem-profile.rst > > > > > > > > > +Trusted Reviewers > > > > > +----------------- > > > > > +Johannes Thumshirn > > > > > +Toshi Kani > > > > > +Jeff Moyer > > > > > +Robert Elliott > > > > > > > > Don't you want to add email addresses? > > > > Only the first one is listed in MAINTAINERS. > > > > > > IMO, it makes sense to have their e-mails here, in a way that it could > > > easily be parsed by get_maintainers.pl. > > > > I personally think that list of "trusted reviewers" makes more harm than > > good. It creates unneeded negative feelings to those who wanted to be in > > this list, but for any reason they don't. Those reviewers will feel > > "untrusted". > > I'd like to +1 on this concern here. Besides leaving all the other > people demotivated. Yes, that's a valid concern, I overlooked that unfortunate interpretation. > > A small group of trusted reviewers doesn't scale. People will get overloaded. > Or you won't be able to enforce that all patches need to get Reviews. > > Reviews should be coming from everywhere and commiters and maintainers > deciding on what to trust or re-review. > > Also the list is hard to maintain and keep the lists updated. I understand the concern, and as I saw feedback come in I realized there were more people that I would add to that reviewer list for libnvdimm. Stepping back the end goal is to have an initial list of recommended people to follow up with directly to seek a second opinion, or help in cases where a contributor otherwise needs some direction / engagement that they are not readily receiving from the maintainer. Typically someone just lurks on the mailing list for a few weeks to get a feel for who the usual suspects are in the subsystem, but for a new contributor identifying those individuals may be difficult. One of the contributing factors of lack of response to a patchset is that they are sent with the implicit expectation that the maintainer will get to eventually, and typically other people feel content to sit back and watch. If instead a contributor sent a direct mail to a "trusted reviewer" saying, "Hey, Alice, Bob seems busy can you help me out?" that seems more likely to rope in additional review help.