Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Document the new media-committer's model

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 08:19:58AM +0100, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> Em Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:03:45 +0100 Hans Verkuil escreveu:
> > On 02/12/2024 10:26, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote:
> > > The media subsystem used to have a multi-commiter's model in the
> > > past, but things didn't go well on that time, and we had to move to
> > > a centralized model.
> > > 
> > > As the community has evolved, and as there are now new policies in
> > > place like CoC, let's experiment with a multi-committers again.
> > > 
> > > The model we're using was inspired by the DRM multi-committers
> > > model. Yet, media subsystem is different on several aspects, so the
> > > model is not exactly the same.
> > > 
> > > The implementation will be in phases. For this phase, the goal is that 
> > > all committers will be people listed at MAINTAINERS.
> > > 
> > > On this series,:
> > > 
> > > patch 1: updates the  media maintainer's entry profile and adds the
> > > workflow that will be used with the new model. While here, it also
> > > adds a missing "P:" tag at the MAINTAINERS file, pointing to it;
> > > 
> > > patch 2: adds a new document focused at the new maintainers
> > > process. Its target is for developers that will be granted with
> > > commit rights at the new media-maintainers.git tree. It also
> > > contains a reference tag addition to kernel.org PGP chain
> > > at process/maintainer-pgp-guide.rst.
> > > 
> > > patch 3: make documents cleared about maintainership duties.  
> > 
> > At least from my perspective, v3 is close to being ready and I hope
> > that v4 will be good enough to be merged.
> > 
> > That said, what is missing in all this is that there is nothing here
> > that explains why you would want to become a media committer. It is all
> > very dry stuff, lots of 'shall's, and 'rights' and 'trust' and obligations,
> > but nothing about the satisfaction you get when you get the responsibility
> > of a part of the kernel and being able to guide the development of that
> > area.
> > 
> > It's good enough to get the multi-committer process off the ground, but
> > it definitely needs more work to make it more inviting to become a media
> > committer. Because right now it is as dry as dust.
> 
> Agreed. We focused on getting a document describing what it is expected
> by committers, in order to start with the model. My view is that it works
> fine for such purpose. I also feel that we're close to the final document.
> 
> I'm sending today a v4 addressing the comments since last review.
> 
> Once we get people that are already interested and ready to be on board,
> and we know that the model and infrastructure works properly, we may implement
> a phase 2 focusing on allowing more committers. For such purpose, we need to 
> document the benefits/satisfaction of becoming a new committer. Depending how
> it goes, either on phase 2 or on phase 3, we can change the model from 
> invitation-only to volunteer-requests.

What's phase 3 ?

-- 
Regards,

Laurent Pinchart




[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite Forum]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Resources]

  Powered by Linux