Dave, On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 05:51:30PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Neil, > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2013 at 10:44:24AM +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Sat, 9 Nov 2013 06:59:00 +0800 Zhi Yong Wu <zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 6:03 AM, Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Hey Ric, > > > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 03:50:21PM -0500, Ric Wheeler wrote: > > > >> On 11/08/2013 03:46 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > > > >> >Hey Christoph, > > > >> > > > > >> >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:34:24AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > >> >>On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 12:03:37PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote: > > > >> >>>Mark is replacing Alex as my backup because Alex is really busy at > > > >> >>>Linaro and asked to be taken off awhile ago. The holiday season is > > > >> >>>coming up and I fully intend to go off my meds, turn in to Fonzy the > > > >> >>>bear, and eat my hat. I need someone to watch the shop while I'm off > > > >> >>>exploring on Mars. I trust Mark to do that because he is totally > > > >> >>>awesome. > > > >> >> > > > >> >>Doing this as an unilateral decisions is not something that will win you > > > >> >>a fan base. > > > >> >It's posted for review. > > > >> > > > > >> >>While we never had anything reassembling a democracy in Linux Kernel > > > >> >>development making decisions without even contacting the major > > > >> >>contributor is wrong, twice so if the maintainer is a relatively minor > > > >> >>contributor to start with. > > > >> >> > > > >> >>Just because it recent came up elsewhere I'd like to recite the > > > >> >>definition from Trond here again: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-2012-discuss/2012-June/000066.html > > > >> >> > > > >> >>By many of the creative roles enlisted there it's clear that Dave should > > > >> >>be the maintainer. He's been the main contributor and chief architect > > > >> >>for XFS for many year, while the maintainers came and went at the mercy > > > >> >>of SGI. This is not meant to bad mouth either of you as I think you're > > > >> >>doing a reasonably good job compared to other maintainers, but at the > > > >> >>same time the direction is set by other people that have a much longer > > > >> >>involvement with the project, and having them officially in control > > > >> >>would help us forward a lot. It would also avoid having to spend > > > >> >>considerable resources to train every new generation of SGI maintainer. > > > >> >> > > > >> >>Coming to and end I would like to maintain Dave Chinner as the primary > > > >> >>XFS maintainer for all the work he has done as biggest contributor and > > > >> >>architect of XFS since longer than I can remember, and I would love to > > > >> >>retain Ben Myers as a co-maintainer for all the good work he has done > > > >> >>maintaining and reviewing patches since November 2011. > > > >> >I think we're doing a decent job too. So thanks for that much at least. ;) > > > >> >>I would also like to use this post as a public venue to condemn the > > > >> >>unilateral smokey backroom decisions about XFS maintainership that SGI is > > > >> >>trying to enforce on the community. > > > >> >That really didn't happen Christoph. It's not in my tree or in a pull request. > > > >> > > > > >> >Linus, let me know what you want to do. I do think we're doing a fair job over > > > >> >here, and (geez) I'm just trying to add Mark as my backup since Alex is too > > > >> >busy. I know the RH people want more control, and that's understandable, but > > > >> >they really don't need to replace me to get their code in. Ouch. > > > >> > > > > >> >Thanks, > > > >> > Ben > > > >> > > > >> Christoph is not a Red Hat person. > > > >> > > > >> Jeff is from Oracle. > > > >> > > > >> This is not a Red Hat vs SGI thing, > > > > > > > > Sorry if my read on that was wrong. > > > > > > > >> Dave simply has earned the right > > > >> to take on the formal leadership role of maintainer. > > > > > > > > Then we're gonna need some Reviewed-bys. ;) > > > > > > > > From: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > xfs: update maintainers > > > > > > > > Add Dave as maintainer of XFS. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > MAINTAINERS | 2 +- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > > > Index: b/MAINTAINERS > > > > =================================================================== > > > > --- a/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:20:18.935186245 -0600 > > > > +++ b/MAINTAINERS 2013-11-08 15:22:50.685245977 -0600 > > > > @@ -9387,8 +9387,8 @@ F: drivers/xen/*swiotlb* > > > > > > > > XFS FILESYSTEM > > > > P: Silicon Graphics Inc > > > > +M: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Use his personal private mail account? I guess that you should ask for > > > his opinion at first, or it is more appropriate that he submit this > > > patch by himself. > > If y'all don't mind, I'd like to have authored this one. ;) > > > Indeed. And does he even want the job? I heard Linus say in a recent > > interview that being a maintainer is a $#!+ job. > > I've found that it can be a little bit stressful sometimes and it tends to > crowd out feature work, so I guess I agree with him. It turns out to be an > excellent weight loss plan. > > > Is it really best for the > > most active developers to be burdened with that extra work? > > > > (hmm.. maybe I should add Dave to the Cc here .. but no-one else did so best > > leave him alone to code in peace). > > Dave, what do you want to do here? Which email? What sort of arrangement? I > gather that you probably do want the job, and I know you'll be fantastic. Do > you want to do it all yourself? Maybe split it up? I should have also suggested that we can add you to this file and just keep our existing arrangements. That seems appropriate to me, befitting of your achievements, the work you've been doing, and I'm willing to keep on as I am. Regards, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
