On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:23 PM Richard Sandiford <richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote:
> David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com> writes: > > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 6:22 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc < > gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> At the moment, all reviewers and maintainers have to be appointed by the > >> Steering Committee. I wonder if we could add a second, more > >> community-based > >> route: someone can be appointed as a reviewer or maintainer with the > >> agreement > >> of a given number of people who already have an equal or greater remit. > >> > >> It's already possible for reviewers or maintainers to defer to the > >> opinion of someone they trust and rubber-stamp that other person's > >> review or patch. Having the ability to appoint the other person as a > >> co-reviewer or co-maintainer of that area is really just replacing > >> patch-by-patch trust with a more ongoing trust. > >> > >> If that seems a bit woolly, and if a more formally defined process > >> seems necessary, then how about this strawman: > >> > >> * Someone can be nominated to be a reviewer of an area by sending a > >> private email to every reviewer and maintainer who covers a non-strict > >> superset of that area. The nomination is approved if it is supported > >> by at least two such reviewers or maintainers and if there are no > >> objections. People would be given at least a week to respond. > >> > >> * The process would be the same for maintainers, with the same set of > >> addressees, except that there must already be at least one maintainer > >> for that area and, in addition to the previous requirements, all such > >> maintainers must be in favour. > >> > >> (So if the area is maintained by one person, the nomination would > >> need the support of that maintainer and at least one reviewer of a > >> wider area. If the area is maintained by two of more people, they > >> would all need to agree.) > >> > >> The idea with making it private is that it allows for a more honest > >> discussion. But the convention could be to have a public discussion > >> instead, if that seems better. > >> > >> Like I say, this would just be a second, alternative route. It would > >> still be possible to ask the SC instead. > >> > >> In case it sounds otherwise, I'm really not trying to pick a fight here. > >> I just don't remember this being discussed on-list for a long time, > >> so it seemed worth bringing up. (Maybe it has been discussed at the > >> Cauldron -- not sure.) > >> > > > > What is a request to the GCC SC preventing? > > > > The GCC SC already requests the opinion of existing reviewers and > > maintainers. > > Like I say, the idea isn't to replace the existing system, just to > provide a second, alternative path. > > But I suppose the question works both ways: does the SC need to be > involved in every decision? There doesn't seem to be a specific need > for the SC to act as the gatherer of opinions if the maintainers/reviewers > are able to agree on a candidate directly amongst themselves. In cases > like those, having the conversation directly would be a lighter-weight > and more transparent process (especially if, as Richard suggests, > the discussion happens in public). > What is not working with the current system? What is this fixing? The GCC SC has not been notified of any problems with appointing maintainers. Thanks, David > > Thanks, > Richard >
