Re: An alternative way of appointing reviewers and maintainers
> Am 03.06.2025 um 12:22 schrieb Richard Sandiford via Gcc : > > 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. I think the formal request and approval should be public to also allow not strictly participating people voice their opinions. The most serious flaw of the suggested scheme is that any global maintainer (and reviewer) would have a veto right. Some form of qualified majority should be enough for an approval? Say, require 50% of the vote eligible people to approve in case there’s an objection from someone? Otherwise I’m all for more transparency. Note first getting approval in private from the nominee would be a good standard. Richard > 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.) > > Thanks, > Richard
An alternative way of appointing reviewers and maintainers
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.) Thanks, Richard
Re: An alternative way of appointing reviewers and maintainers
On Tue, 3 Jun 2025 at 11:21, Richard Sandiford via Gcc 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. Sounds like a good idea to me, with whatever details to be worked out (I'm fine with your strawman process proposal, or Richi's suggestion for more transparency, I don't have a strong opinion either way). This seems like letting the existing maintainers and the community manage the day-to-day running of the project, and only involve the SC to "make major decisions" (as the docs say they do). > > 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.) > > Thanks, > Richard
Re: An alternative way of appointing reviewers and maintainers
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 6:22 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc 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. David > > Thanks, > Richard >
Re: An alternative way of appointing reviewers and maintainers
David Edelsohn writes: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 6:22 AM Richard Sandiford via Gcc > 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). Thanks, Richard
Re: An alternative way of appointing reviewers and maintainers
On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:23 PM Richard Sandiford wrote: > David Edelsohn 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 >
Re: An alternative way of appointing reviewers and maintainers
David Edelsohn via Gcc writes: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2025 at 3:23 PM Richard Sandiford > wrote: > >> David Edelsohn 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. The SC is (by design, as I understand) opaque to those not in the SC. How the SC works, and how it makes decisions, are not visible to outsiders. There is no defined way of contacting the SC collectively. You have to approach individual members, ask them to contact the SC on your behalf, then wait for the SC's decision to be forwarded back to you. The problem with this approach is that it's easy for things to get lost. Last year I nominated someone for a new role and the whole process took over three months. In more detail: I originally sent a nomination to two members of the SC and asked them to forward it to the wider SC. I didn't hear anything for a while. But because of the way that the SC works, I didn't expect to hear anything for a while, so nothing seemed wrong. However, it turned out that both of the people that I contacted had overlooked the message, and so in fact nothing had happened. I don't blame them at all for that -- we're all busy people, and I could so very easily have done the same thing in their position! But it was only after a couple of months of waiting that the process proper actually started. Of course, I'd asked the nominee beforehand whether they were interested, so such a long delay didn't give a good impression. I began to wonder, and I wouldn't blame the person I nominated for wondering, whether the SC had some doubts about their ability. It all seemed like a needless worry. I have heard another instance of a discussion with the SC suffering similar hiccups.
