On Fri, Nov 16 2018, Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 12:37 PM Rodrigo Vivi <rodrigo.vivi(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 8:38 AM Leon Romanovsky <leon(a)kernel.org&gt; 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 <geert(a)linux-m68k.org&gt; escreveu: >> > > >> > > > Hi Dan, >> > > > >> > > > On Thu, Nov 15, 2018 at 6:06 AM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams(a)intel.com&gt; 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 <zwisler(a)kernel.org&gt; >> > > > > Cc: Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma(a)intel.com&gt; >> > > > > Cc: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang(a)intel.com&gt; >> > > > > Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams(a)intel.com&gt; >> > > > >> > > > 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. In here is, I think, a real issue that listing "trusted reviewers" might help address. As you say, people don't feel the need to comment - particularly if they don't see anything wrong (often best to insert a bug to encourage responses!). Maybe if we list people, it will make them feel that their opinion is valuable (trusted!) and that will encourage them to Ack or Review a patch. I have found that being given a title of responsibility can change my thinking from "someone should" to "I should".

On Fri, Nov 16, 2018 at 03:39:47AM -0800, Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Em Thu, 15 Nov 2018 11:43:51 -0800 > Joe Perches <joe(a)perches.com&gt; escreveu: > > > On Thu, 2018-11-15 at 19:40 +0000, Luck, Tony wrote: > > > > I would recommend to remove this section at all. > > > > New maintainers won't come out of blue, but will be come > > > > from existing community and such individuals for sure will see > > > > and judge by themselves to whom they trust and to whom not. > > > > > > Perhaps this is more of a hint to contributors than to maintainers > > > (see earlier discussion on who is the target audience for these documents). > > > > > > It would help contributors know some names of useful reviewers (and > > > thus this list should be picked up by scripts/get_maintainer.pl to help > > > the user compose Cc: lists for e-mail patches). > > > > Trusted reviewers should be specifically listed > > in the MAINTAINERS file with an "R:" entry. > > > > get_maintainers should not look anywhere else. > > I know that making get_maintainers to look elsewhere can make it more > complex and slower, but IMHO, by having a per-subsystem profile, this is > unavoidable. > > The thing is that touching at a single MAINTAINERS file every time a new > reviewer comes is painful. Also, MAINTAINERS file format doesn't allow > adding free text explaining the criteria for someone to become a > reviewer. You are pointing to the actual problem -> someone needs to maintain such lists, Removal of persons from that list won't be easy task too.